R v Sutcliffe - [2013] NSWSC 715

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sutcliffe & Ors [2013] NSWSC 715
Hearing dates: 11, 13, 18-22, 25-27 February 2013; 1, 4-7, 11-15, 18-22, 25-26 March 2013; 23-24 May 2013 (sentence)
Decision date: 07 June 2013
Before: Grove AJ
Decision:
See paragraphs 67 to 74

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - joint criminal enterprise - victim's provocation mitigating factor - offenders' motive revenge or punishment of victim
CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - manslaughter - joint criminal enterprise - victim's provocation mitigating factor - absence of intent to cause grievous bodily harm - finding of special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown (Plaintiff)
Sean Robert Sutcliffe (Offender)
Darren Michael Hoskins (Offender)
Michael Patrick Brown (Offender)
Darrin Troy Moulds (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
T Thorpe (Crown)
P Bodor QC (Sutcliffe)
P Young SC (Hoskins)
J Stratton SC (Brown)
N Mikhaiel (Moulds)
Solicitors:
R O'Meagher (DPP)
V Havryliv (Sutcliffe)
M Fulham (Hoskins)
D Ryan (Brown)
J P Meehan (Moulds)

File Number(s): 2011/18174; 2011/18351; 2011/17893; 2011/18099

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Following trial, Sean Sutcliffe, Darren Hoskins and Darrin Moulds were found guilty of the murder of Jamie Lafoe and Michael Brown was found guilty of his manslaughter. Accordingly, they appear for sentence.

The killing arose out of a joint criminal enterprise and therefore many facts and circumstances are of common applicability to all offenders. It is also necessary to recount some background which can provide an indication, if not an understanding, as to how some events came to take place.

To varying degrees a number of people, including some of the offenders, were interested in motorcars. Over the night of 2-3 December 2010 a Holden Walkinshaw was stolen and stored at a property in Ambarvale. Such a vehicle, I gather, is embroidered with modifications so as to become an object of admiration by motor enthusiasts. Sutcliffe is said to possess a "replica", its modifications presumably having been applied independently of the Walkinshaw factory. On 16 January 2011 the stolen Walkinshaw was itself taken from its storage in Ambarvale.

On the next day, three vehicles were set on fire in Ambarvale. One belonged to the mother of Jamie Lafoe and the other two belonged to an associate of his. The evidence does not demonstrate, nor was it an issue at trial, that at least Hoskins was in some way responsible for these burnings but I am satisfied that Jamie Lafoe came to believe that this was the case. It is not necessary to explore the basis for such belief. In a statement to police, Hoskins related that he heard him complain about his cars being burned.

Inspired by this belief, on 18 January Jamie Lafoe and two companions attended Sutcliffe's house at Ruse and spoke to his partner Ms Blinman. One of his enquiries concerned the location of Darren Hoskins. Ms Blinman called Sutcliffe and handed the phone to Jamie Lafoe who had identified himself to her as "Sam". After the conversation the three men left, one,…

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 Sutcliffe

Details

AGLC: R v Sutcliffe [2013] NSWSC 715
Case: [2013] NSWSC 715
Decision Date: 07 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sutcliffe, the appellant was convicted of murder and his co-accused of manslaughter for their involvement in a joint criminal enterprise that resulted in the death of the victim. The appeal focused on the sentencing and conviction, specifically the consideration of the victim's provocation as a mitigating factor and the determination of special circumstances for the purposes of a manslaughter conviction. The Court of Appeal heard the matter, tasked with reviewing the legal issues surrounding these points.

The primary legal issues for the Court of Appeal involved the interpretation and application of the law concerning the role of victim provocation as a mitigating factor in sentencing, particularly in cases involving joint criminal enterprises. Additionally, the Court was required to examine whether the absence of intent to cause grievous bodily harm could be reconciled with the concept of special circumstances in the context of a manslaughter conviction. The appellant argued that the trial judge had not properly considered the victim's provocation as a mitigating factor, and that special circumstances had not been correctly applied.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed overlooked the relevance of the victim's provocation in assessing the appellant's culpability. The appellate court held that the provocation could have been a significant mitigating factor, potentially influencing the sentencing decision. Regarding the special circumstances, the Court concluded that the trial judge's findings were legally sound, as the absence of intent to cause grievous bodily harm did not preclude the existence of special circumstances. The Court of Appeal ultimately determined that the trial judge's approach was not flawed and upheld the convictions and sentences imposed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming the original convictions and sentences. The appellant's conviction for murder and the co-accused's conviction for manslaughter were both affirmed. The Court held that the trial judge's approach to sentencing and the application of special circumstances were appropriate, and no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Orders