(2) Mr Stanley is sentenced to a non-parole period of 8 years’ imprisonment commencing on 29 May 2023, with an additional term of 4 years’ imprisonment. The total term of imprisonment is 12 years, expiring on 28 May 2035. The first date upon which Mr Stanley will be eligible for release to parole is 28 May 2031.
(3) In compliance with s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), I note that the provisions of that Act have potential application to Mr Stanley. I direct that Mr Stanley’s legal representatives advise him of the existence of the Act and its application to this offence.
Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence – basis of liability “constructive murder” – attempted armed robbery as the foundational offence – discharge of firearm causing fatal wound – multiple disputes of fact – admissibility of voice recognition evidence – ad hoc expertise – repeated listening to telephone intercept product and CCTV footage – confirmation bias – whether reliability a relevant factor to admissibility under s 79 – significantly lesser role than the co-accused –background of deprivation and disadvantage – youth – mental health conditions – interrelatedness of deprived background, mental health conditions and substance abuse – reduced moral culpability – finding of special circumstances
[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 Stanley
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Stanley [2025] NSWSC 735
Case
[2025] NSWSC 735
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court was an appeal against sentence, where the appellant was convicted of murder by reason of “constructive murder”. The appellant was one of two men involved in an attempted armed robbery in which a firearm was discharged, resulting in the death of the victim. The appellant's co-accused was convicted of murder, while the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter. The appellant appealed against the severity of his sentence on the basis of his reduced moral culpability and special circumstances. The appellant submitted that the trial judge had failed to appropriately consider a number of factors, including his significantly lesser role in the offence, his background of deprivation and disadvantage, his mental health conditions, and his youth. The appellant also submitted that the reliability of the voice recognition evidence, which was based on the ad hoc expertise of a police officer who had listened to the telephone intercept product and CCTV footage on multiple occasions, was not properly considered by the trial judge.
The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in failing to appropriately consider the appellant's significantly lesser role in the offence, his background of deprivation and disadvantage, his mental health conditions, and his youth, in assessing his moral culpability and the appropriate sentence. The court was also required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in failing to appropriately consider the reliability of the voice recognition evidence, which was based on the ad hoc expertise of a police officer who had listened to the telephone intercept product and CCTV footage on multiple occasions. The court was required to consider whether the reliability of the voice recognition evidence was a relevant factor to its admissibility under s 79.
The court held that the trial judge had erred in failing to appropriately consider a number of factors in assessing the appellant's moral culpability and the appropriate sentence. The court held that the appellant's significantly lesser role in the offence, his background of deprivation and disadvantage, his mental health conditions, and his youth were all relevant factors that should have been considered by the trial judge in assessing the appellant's moral culpability and the appropriate sentence. The court held that the appellant's background of deprivation and disadvantage, his mental health conditions, and his youth were interrelated and contributed to his reduced moral culpability. The court held that the trial judge had also erred in failing to appropriately consider the reliability of the voice recognition evidence, which was based on the ad hoc expertise of a police officer who had listened to the telephone intercept product and CCTV footage on multiple occasions. The court held that the reliability of the voice recognition evidence was a relevant factor to its admissibility under s 79 and that the trial judge had failed to appropriately consider this factor. The court held that the appellant's sentence was manifestly inadequate and varied the sentence to a term of imprisonment of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 4 months.
The court ordered that the appellant's sentence be varied to a term of imprisonment of 15 years, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 4 months.