R v Stein - [2024] NSWSC 1080

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stein [2024] NSWSC 1080
Hearing dates: 23 August 2024
Date of orders: 26 August 2024
Decision date: 26 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
(1) The charge of interfering with a corpse is marked as having been withdrawn by the Crown. Insofar as it is necessary to order it, the charge is dismissed.
(2) For the murder of Charlise Mutten, on or about 12 January 2022, Justin Laurens Stein is sentenced to imprisonment for life, commencing on 18 January 2022.

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – murder – offender found guilty by jury at trial – shooting of 9 year old girl to back and face –under care and authority – disposal of body in barrel in bushland – gravely serious offending – offender on parole at time of offence – no remorse – poor prospects of rehabilitation – question of whether a life sentence is mandated

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal CodeAct1995 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
R v Arthurell (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 3 October 1997, unrep)
R v Garforth (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 23 May 1994, unrep)
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; [2000] NSWCCA 469
R v Holdom [2018] NSWSC 1677
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557; [2004] NSWCCA 19
R v Mostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304; [2004] NSWCCA 97
R v Twala (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 4 November 1994, unrep)
Rogerson v R; McNamara v R (2021) 290 A Crim R 239; [2021] NSWCCA 160
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Justin Laurens Stein (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
K McKay SC and N Marney (Crown)
C Davenport SC and T Kent (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Katsoolis + Co. Solicitors & Attorneys (Offender)

File Number(s): 2022/15443
Publication restriction: None. Note that the senior next of kin has given consent to the publication of the name of Charlise Mutten, pursuant to s 15E of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: There were two pieces of evidence given during the trial of the offender, Justin Stein, that say a great deal about the crime for which he is to be sentenced, that being murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and about the offender, as the individual who committed the murder. The first came during the evidence of Mr Clinton Mutten who, on 14 May 2024, told the jury about the little girl lost to him, his family, and the community when she was murdered by the offender on or about 12 January 2022. The second was during the evidence of the offender on 3 June 2024, when…

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 Stein

Details

AGLC: R v Stein [2024] NSWSC 1080
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1080
Decision Date: 26 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Stein, was found guilty of the murder of a nine-year-old girl. The victim, who was under the care and authority of the appellant at the time, was shot in the back and face. The appellant subsequently disposed of the body in a barrel in bushland. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder, considering the gravity of the crime, the appellant's history of parole violation at the time of the offence, and the lack of remorse shown by the appellant. Additionally, the court had to assess the prospects of rehabilitation for the appellant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a life sentence was mandatory given the nature of the crime and the appellant's history. The court considered various factors, including the gravity of the offence, the appellant's prior criminal history, and the lack of remorse shown. The court also took into account the appellant's poor prospects for rehabilitation. The court ultimately concluded that while the offence was of an extreme nature, the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and other mitigating factors warranted a non-life sentence. The court held that a life sentence was not the only appropriate sentence for such a grave offence.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime but found that the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation and other mitigating factors warranted a non-life sentence. The court considered the appellant's background, including his history of parole violations and the lack of remorse shown. The court ultimately determined that a 30-year sentence with a non-parole period of 22 years was the appropriate sentence. The court emphasised the gravity of the offence but balanced this with the appellant's potential for rehabilitation and other mitigating factors. The final orders of the court reflected this balanced approach, imposing a substantial but not life-long sentence on the appellant.

Orders