R v Steven John Smith - [2013] NSWSC 1723

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Steven John Smith [2013] NSWSC 1723
Hearing dates: 1, 2 October 2013; 13 November 2013
Decision date: 14 November 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Barr AJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of eight years imprisonment for robbery with a non-parole period of six years, commencing on 8 August 2013 and expiring on 7 August 2019. Sentenced to a term of twenty years imprisonment for murder with a non-parole period of fourteen years, commencing 8 August 2016 and expiring 7 August 2036. The sentences are to be served concurrently. The earliest day upon which the offender will be eligible for release on parole is 7 August 2030.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - robbery - home invasion - offensive weapon - delayed guilty plea - discounted sentence - offences committed on parole - offences committed in company - aggravated by fact that victims were vulnerable and offences occurred in victims home - mitigating factors - remorse - low intelligence - drug addiction - Aboriginal - victims impact statement
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Steven John Smith (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms J Baly (Crown)
Mr D Carroll (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Shir Danieli Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/201460
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

The offender Steven John Smith has pleaded guilty of three offences, namely that:

On 26 November 2010 at Kempsey he murdered Stanley Bruce Davies;

On or about 18 November 2010 at Dondingalong while in the company of two others and armed with offensive weapons he robbed John and Miriam Cowles of car keys and credit cards; and

At the same time and place while in the same company and similarly armed he robbed Miriam Cowles of a sum of money.

THE FACTS

An agreed statement of facts was received into evidence. The following account is adapted from the statement. At 11.30pm on 18 November 2010 the offender, his cousin Richard Keith Smith and a colleague broke and entered a house in a suburb of Kempsey. The occupants, Mr and Mrs Cowles, were at home. The three attackers took up a knife and an axe handle that they found in the house. One of them laid into Mr Cowles with the axe handle. They asked Mr and Mrs Cowles where their safe was and they said that they did not have a safe. They stole car keys and bank cards. The offender took Mrs Cowles in her car to an automatic teller machine and made her withdraw $800. He stole the money from her. On the way home he warned her that if she told the police they would come back for her. He told her that he was sorry for robbing her and that he intended to use the money to buy drugs. In the meantime the others bound Mr Cowles with rope. The three drove off in Mrs Cowles' car taking with them the money and the other things they had stolen.

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Steven John Smith and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWSC 1723
Decision Date: 14 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Steven John Smith involved the defendant, Steven John Smith, who was convicted of murder and robbery. Smith committed these crimes during a home invasion, armed with an offensive weapon. Smith entered the home of his victims with the intent to commit robbery and subsequently killed one of the occupants. The court had to consider a number of legal issues, including the appropriate sentence for the crimes committed, the mitigating factors that could potentially reduce the severity of the sentence, and the impact of the crimes on the victims and their families. The court also had to consider the fact that Smith had committed the offences while on parole for previous crimes and that he had acted in company with others, which could potentially aggravate the sentence.

The court focused on the gravity of the offences, which involved a home invasion, the use of an offensive weapon, and the killing of a vulnerable individual in their own home. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors presented by Smith's counsel, including his low intelligence, drug addiction, and Aboriginal background. However, the court determined that these factors did not outweigh the severity of the crimes committed. The court also considered the impact of the crimes on the victims and their families, as evidenced by the victim impact statement presented in court. The court ultimately determined that a discounted sentence was appropriate due to Smith's delayed guilty plea, but that the sentence must still reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed.

The court sentenced Smith to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors presented by Smith's counsel but determined that they did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the need to protect the community from further harm by Smith. The court emphasised the gravity of the crimes committed and the impact they had on the victims and their families. The court determined that a sentence of this length was necessary to achieve these objectives while also taking into account the mitigating factors presented.

Orders