Legal Research
Cases
R v Stani-Reginald

R v Stani-Reginald

Case [2013] NSWSC 567 17 May 2013

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Murder

Aggravated Sexual Assault

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stani-Reginald [2013] NSWSC 567
Hearing dates: 29 April 201330 April 2013
Decision date: 17 May 2013
Before: Price J
Decision:
See paragraphs 109 and 110

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - aggravated sexual assault - worst category - no utilitarian discount for guilty plea - whether mental disorder - no remorse - future dangerousness - youth - whether life sentence should be imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 s 19A, s 61J(1)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21(1), s 21A(3)(i), s 33, s 61(1), s 61(6)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR
DSR v R [2012] NSWCCA 159
Ibbs v The Queen [1987] HCA 46; (1987) 163 CLR 447 at 451-452; 27 A Crim R 465 at 468
Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; (2006) 164 A Crim R 126
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R 1
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Garforth (NSWCCA, 23 May 1994, unreported)
R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469; (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v Harrison (1997) 93 A Crim R 314
R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451
R v Lemene [2001] NSWCCA 5; (2001) 118 A Crim R 131
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; (2006) NSWLR 566
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
R v Phuong Canh Ngo (No 3) [2001] NSWSC 1021; (2001) 125 A Crim R 495
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Robinson [2002] NSWCCA 359
R v Russell (NSWCCA, 21 June 1996, unreported)
R v SLD [2003] NSWCCA 310; (2003) 58 NSWLR 589
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Daniel Stani-Reginald
Representation: Counsel: Mr M Tedeschi QC (Crown)
Mr N Steel (Offender)
Solicitors: Mr R Kotsis (Director of
Public Prosecutions)
Mr M Klees Mark Klees & Associates (Offender)

File Number(s): 2011/80450

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

His Honour: On 1 February 2013, Daniel Stani-Reginald (the offender) was arraigned on an indictment containing three counts. The offender pleaded guilty to the murder of Tosha Thakkar on 9 March 2011 (count 1). He also pleaded guilty to having sexual intercourse with Tosha Thakkar on 9 March 2011 without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting in circumstances of aggravation, namely that at the time of the offence, he occasioned actual bodily harm to her (count two). This is an offence of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent contrary to s 61J(1) Crimes Act 1900. The Crown did not seek a plea to count 3 which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Stani-Reginald

Details

AGLC: R v Stani-Reginald [2013] NSWSC 567
Case: [2013] NSWSC 567
Decision Date: 17 May 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stani-Reginald, the appellant was convicted of the murder of a 15-year-old girl and aggravated sexual assault. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these crimes. The legal issues before the court involved whether the appellant should be placed in the worst category for sentencing purposes, the applicability of a discount for a guilty plea, the presence of a mental disorder, the absence of remorse, the potential for future dangerousness, and the youth of the offender in the context of imposing a life sentence.

The court held that the crimes were of the worst category, precluding a discount for a guilty plea. The court noted that the appellant had no mental disorder, did not demonstrate any remorse, and posed a risk of future dangerousness. The court also considered the youth of the offender, which was a mitigating factor. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appropriate sentence for these heinous crimes was life imprisonment. The court found that the gravity of the offences and the risk of future dangerousness outweighed the mitigating factors, including the youth of the offender.

The court's decision highlights the importance of considering multiple factors in sentencing, including the nature of the offence, the offender's culpability, and the risk of reoffending. The court's ruling affirms that a life sentence may be appropriate for the most serious crimes, even when the offender is young. The decision also reinforces the principle that a guilty plea does not necessarily lead to a reduced sentence in cases of the most serious crimes.

Orders