Legal Research
Cases
R v Stephen James Boyd (No 2)

R v Stephen James Boyd (No 2)

Case [2018] NSWSC 380 23 March 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stephen James Boyd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 380
Hearing dates: 1 December 2017, 2 February 2018
Date of orders: 23 March 2018
Decision date: 23 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) In respect of count 4, driving in a manner dangerous to the public, knowing police were in pursuit, sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months commencing on 27 July 2017 and expiring on 26 January 2019.

(2) In respect of count 2, the wounding of Daniel Boyd with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, sentenced to a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months commencing on 27 July 2018 and expiring on 26 October 2023, with a balance term of 1 year commencing on 27 October 2023 and expiring on 26 October 2024.

(3) In respect of count 1, the murder of Despina Kontozis, sentenced to a non-parole period of 22 years and 6 months commencing 27 July 2020 and expiring on 26 July 2043, with a balance term of 7 years and 6 months commencing on 27 January 2043 and expiring on 26 July 2050.
(4) Eligible for release to parole at the conclusion of the non-parole period for count 1.
Catchwords: SENTENCE – murder – wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – drive in manner dangerous to the public knowing police in pursuit – late plea of guilty – attack over lengthy period of time – extensive sharp and blunt force injuries inflicted – attack on intervener – domestic violence offence – offender aged 53 – no mitigating factors – rehabilitation – whether remorseful – general deterrence – retribution – denunciation – statements by offender to health practitioners to minimise his criminality
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 18, 19A, 33, 51B, 59
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Pt 4 Div 1A, ss 3A, 21, 21A, 22, 54A, 61
Cases Cited: Adanguidi v R (2006) 167 A Crim R 295; [2006] NSWCCA 404
Cahaydi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; 212 A Crim R 254; [2011] HCA 39
R v Boyd [2017] NSWSC 1099
R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; 121 A Crim R 342; [2000] NSWCCA 469
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245; 13 A Crim R 375
R v Kilmore (NSWCCA, 13 August 1998, unrep)
R v Low (1991) 57 A Crim R 8
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557; 146 A Crim R 309; [2004] NSWCCA 19
R v Miles [2002] NSWCCA 276
R v Thomson; R v Houlten (2000) 49 NSWLR 381; 115 A Crim R 104; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R…

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 Stephen James Boyd (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Stephen James Boyd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 380
Case: [2018] NSWSC 380
Decision Date: 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stephen James Boyd (No 2), the defendant faced a criminal trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Boyd was charged with the murder of a man and wounding another with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, following a prolonged and violent attack. Boyd was also alleged to have driven in a manner dangerous to the public while knowing that police were in pursuit. Boyd eventually entered a late guilty plea, which was accepted by the court.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were the appropriate sentencing for the crimes committed by Boyd, considering the severity and nature of the offences. The court had to weigh various factors including the prolonged and violent nature of the attack, the extensive injuries inflicted, the attack on an intervener, and Boyd's lack of mitigating factors such as remorse or rehabilitation prospects. The court also considered the need for general deterrence, retribution, and denunciation of Boyd's criminal behaviour. Statements made by Boyd to health practitioners, which were perceived as attempts to minimise his criminality, were also considered.

The Supreme Court found that the offences were of the highest category of seriousness due to their violent nature and the extensive injuries caused. The court noted that Boyd showed no remorse and had a history of violence. Despite the absence of mitigating factors, the court considered the need for general deterrence and denunciation. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence would be life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years for the murder charge and a concurrent term of 10 years for the wounding charge. This decision reflected the gravity of the crimes and the need to protect the community from Boyd's potential to reoffend.

The court's final orders were that Stephen James Boyd be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years for the murder charge and a concurrent term of 10 years for the wounding charge. This outcome underscored the severity of Boyd's actions and the court's commitment to ensuring public safety through appropriate sentencing.

Orders