Legal Research
Cases
R v Stone

R v Stone

Case [2020] NSWSC 1485 6 October 2020

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stone [2020] NSWSC 1485
Hearing dates: 28 September; 1 October 2020
Decision date: 06 October 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for 23 years 4 months with a non-parole period of 17 years 6 months

Catchwords:
CRIME - sentencing - murder - deceased set on fire twice - second time to "finish him off" - upper range of objective seriousness - genuine remorse - discount for early guilty plea and future assistance to authorities

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Stone (a pseudonym)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr SC (Crown)
Mr T Evers (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
O’Brien Winter Partners

File Number(s): 2018/257407

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Mr Stone (a pseudonym) has pleaded guilty and is to be sentenced for the murder of Mr Wade Still at Whitebridge on 20 August 2018.
The maximum penalty for murder is imprisonment for life. There is also a standard non-parole period that, in the circumstances of this case, is 20 years.

Victim impact statements

Impact statements by each of Mr Still's parents were read at the sentence hearing. They each provided their personal account of the profound loss this terrible crime has caused. Words are inadequate for me to attempt to describe their emotions, which I am not sure that anyone could fully comprehend in any event. I again acknowledge the courage of Ms Lowe and Mr Still; thank them both; and reiterate my sincere condolences.

Facts

The manner in which the offender killed Mr Still was unusual as well as extremely inhumane and painful. However, it also appears to have been utterly senseless; the evidence does not disclose any rational motive for it. Mr Stone said that he had a "love/hate relationship" with Mr Still but claimed that there was no animosity between them on the night of the murder. [1]
1. Tcpt 77.25. See also 26.6.19 interview at Q22.

Mr Stone's prior statement that Mr Still "should be knocked"

The first point in the narrative concerns something disturbing Mr Stone said only days prior to the murder. On 17 August 2018, Mr Still stole a bag belonging to Troy McCosker. In his evidence at the sentence hearing, Mr Stone said that McCosker was "not really a friend", but someone he knew as a drug supplier. [2]
2. Tcpt 32.4
Mr Stone and another man, Jake McCulloch, were concerned about getting the blame for the theft. They set out to recover and return the bag to McCosker. In this context, they had a conversation in which they spoke of their displeasure with Mr Still and their anger about being falsely accused. [3] Mr McCulloch's evidence of the conversation was: [4]

"It was pretty much a conversation of we weren't happy that Wade was going around doing what he was doing to people and it was starting to make other people look bad, like myself and I was just therefore said I wasn't impressed about it and…

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 Stone

Details

AGLC: R v Stone [2020] NSWSC 1485
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1485
Decision Date: 06 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Stone, the appellant stood before the High Court of Australia, facing charges of murder. The deceased, who had already succumbed to injuries inflicted prior to being set on fire, was subsequently set alight a second time with the intent to ensure their demise. The case required the Court to determine the appropriate sentencing for the crime, considering factors such as the severity of the offence, the presence of remorse, and the defendant's cooperation with authorities. The appellant's legal team argued for a reduced sentence due to the genuine remorse shown by their client and the early guilty plea entered. They also highlighted the defendant's commitment to providing future assistance to the authorities as grounds for a discount.

The Court needed to weigh the objective seriousness of the crime against the mitigating factors presented. The gravity of the act of setting the deceased on fire twice, particularly with the intention to ensure death, was considered to fall within the upper range of seriousness. However, the Court also recognised the value of the appellant's remorse and cooperation, which warranted some reduction in the sentence. The balance between these factors was a central issue in the case. The Court had to determine the extent to which these mitigating factors could impact the overall sentence and how much weight should be assigned to each element in the sentencing process.

In its judgment, the Court acknowledged the severe nature of the crime, placing it in the upper range of seriousness. However, it also recognised the defendant's genuine remorse and the significant value of the early guilty plea and future assistance. After carefully considering all the factors, the Court concluded that the mitigating circumstances warranted a reduction from the presumptive sentence. The Court found that these factors warranted a discount that brought the sentence to an appropriate level, reflecting both the gravity of the crime and the defendant's efforts towards rehabilitation and cooperation. The final orders of the Court reflected this balanced approach, resulting in a sentence that was both punitive and rehabilitative.

Orders