R v Symons, McDonald & Robertson

The defendants, Symons, McDonald, and Robertson, were convicted of murder following a joint attack on the victim. An appeal against their convictions was successful, and they subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter many years after an offer had been made. The trial judge was required to consider the impact on the victim’s family, the delay in the proceedings, the joint nature of the attack, and the individual actions of each defendant. The court also had to consider the relevance of gang membership, the offenders’ prospects of rehabilitation, and their exposure to violence and drug use in childhood. The sentencing principles required consideration of parity with a co-offender who was sentenced for manslaughter and was part of the assault, as well as the due proportion between sentencing.

The court held that the delay in the proceedings failed all participants and that all parties were buffeted by the system. The joint attack was brutal, and the offence was committed over 30 seconds but had been planned for hours or days. The offenders had been employed as muscle, and the relevance of gang membership was considered. The court held that the delay in the proceedings and the offenders’ compliance with bail conditions meant that they should not be required to re-enter custody. The court also held that it was not appropriate for it to communicate with the Parole Authority and make recommendations, as this would be an inappropriate interference with the executive function to grant parole. The court held that the delay in the proceedings and the offenders’ compliance with bail conditions meant that they should not be required to re-enter custody.

The court held that the offenders should be sentenced as if they had been convicted of manslaughter at the time of the offence. The court held that the delay in the proceedings and the offenders’ compliance with bail conditions meant that they should not be required to re-enter custody. The court held that the sentence should reflect the brutal nature of the attack, the joint nature of the offence, and the individual actions of each defendant. The court held that the sentence should also reflect the offenders’ prospects of rehabilitation and their exposure to violence and drug use in childhood. The court held that the sentence should be proportionate to the offence and should reflect the impact on the victim’s family. The court held that the sentence should also reflect the delay in the proceedings and the offenders’ compliance with bail conditions.

The court ordered that the offenders be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period that reflected the delay in the proceedings and the offenders’ compliance with bail conditions. The court held that the offenders should not be required to re-enter custody, as they had been on strict bail and compliant. The court held that the sentence should reflect the brutal nature of the attack, the joint nature of the offence, and the individual actions of each defendant. The court held that the sentence should also reflect the offenders’ prospects of rehabilitation and their exposure to violence and drug use in childhood. The court held that the sentence should be proportionate to the offence and should reflect the impact on the victim’s family. The court held that the sentence should also reflect the delay in the proceedings and the offenders’ compliance with bail conditions.