R v Styman; R v Taber [No 2]

[2004] NSWCCA 447

CITATION:	R v Styman; R v Taber [No 2] [2004] NSWCCA 447 revised - 8/12/2004
HEARING DATE(S):	19 February 2004
JUDGMENT DATE:	29 November 2004
JUDGMENT OF:	Sheller JA; Sperling J; Adams J
DECISION:	Set aside Order 6 made by this Court on 10 September 2004 and in lieu thereof remit the matters to a judge of the Supreme Court for re-sentencing.
CATCHWORDS:	Re-sentencing
LEGISLATION CITED:	Criminal Appeal Act 1912
CASES CITED:	N/A
PARTIES :	Ian Craig Styman - Applicant Peter David Taber - Applicant Crown
FILE NUMBER(S):	CCA 2003/3228 (60327/03); 2003/3044 (60326/03)
COUNSEL:	A Haesler SC for Applicant Styman G D Wendler for Applicant Taber R D Cogswell SC/M C Grogan - Crown
SOLICITORS:	Van Houten Solicitors - Applicants Director of Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	70210/02; 70212/02
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Barr J

2003/3228 (60327/03)
2003/3004 (60326/03)

SHELLER JA
SPERLING J
ADAMS J

Monday, 29 November 2004

Regina v Ian Craig STYMAN

Regina v Peter David TABER

JUDGMENT

[NO 2]

1 SHELLER JA: These matters came before the Court again today in furtherance of a direction that the proceedings be listed before the Registrar for directions concerning fixing a further hearing for re-sentencing before this Court. The fixing of this date gave rise to a proposal from the Crown that there would be an application for this Court itself to enter a verdict for manslaughter. We were informed by the Crown that it would not proceed with that application.

2 The only matter therefore that remains alive, so far as this Court is concerned, is the question of re-sentencing. By agreement the parties joined in seeking an order that that question be remitted to a judge of this Court. The power of this Court to do that is found under s12(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The Court is satisfied that such a proposal is appropriate.

3 There, of course, remains the question as to whether or not an indictment will be filed for the prosecution on counts of manslaughter against each of the appellants. We were informed from the Bar table that an application would be made by at least one of the appellants that that should not happen. In all events, there may or may not be a trial for manslaughter and there may be a question as to whether or not it is likely that if there is a trial for manslaughter followed by conviction, the judge would then be in a position to sentence both on the manslaughter charge and also on the outstanding question of aggravated breaking and entering and committing a serious indictable offence.

4 As I have said, it seems appropriate that the re sentencing for aggravated breaking and entering should be carried out by a judge of this Court. It seems appropriate that any indictment for manslaughter should be laid in this Court.

5 The order which seems, by agreement, to deal with the situation as it now stands is to set aside Order 6 made by this Court and in lieu thereof remit the matters to a judge of the Supreme Court for re-sentencing and that will be the order of the Court.

**********

Last Modified: 12/24/2008