R v Taber; R v Styman; R v Styman - [2003] NSWSC 93

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: R v TABER; R v STYMAN; R v STYMAN [2003] NSWSC 93

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 70212/02
70210/02
70211/02

HEARING DATE{S): 09/09/02-13/09/02, 16/09/02-20/09/02, 23/09/02, 24/09/02, 26/09/02, 27/09/02, 30/09/02, 01/10/02-03/10/02, 08/10/02-11/10/02, 14/10/02-18/10/02, 21/10/02-25/10/02, 28/10/02-31/10/02, 01/11/02, 04/11/02-08/11/02, 11/11/02-15/11/02, 18/11/02-22/11/02, 25/11/02-29/11/02, 02/12/02, 04/12/02-06/12/02, 09/12/02-11/12/02, 14/02/03

JUDGMENT DATE: 28/02/2003

PARTIES:
REGINA v Peter David TABER
REGINA v Ian Craig STYMAN
REGINA v Shannon Troy STYMAN

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
Crown: JP Kiely SC/J Baly
Offender Taber: GD Wendler
Offender Ian Styman: R McCrudden
Offender Shannon Styman: PD Young

SOLICITORS:
Crown: SE O'Connor
Offender Taber: Van Houten
Offender Ian Styman: AP Sparke & Broad
Offender Shannon Styman: Nikola Velcic & Co

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - sentencing - murder by reckless indifference.
Criminal law - sentencing - involuntary manslaughter.
Criminal law - sentencing - breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation.

ACTS CITED:

DECISION:
For the offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation Peter David Taber is sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. His sentence will be taken to have commenced on 26 March 2001. No non-parole period fixed.
For the murder of Joy Golbie Alchin Peter David Taber is sentenced to imprisonment for life. His sentence will commence on 26 March 2003.
For the offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation the offender Ian Craig Styman is sentenced to imprisonment for twenty years. His sentence will be taken to have commenced on 26 March 2001. No non-parole period fixed.
For the murder of Joy Golbie Alchin Ian Craig Styman is sentenced to imprisonment for life. His sentence will commence on 26 March 2004.
For the offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation Shannon Troy Styman is sentenced to imprisonment for eight years. His sentence will be taken to have commenced on 26 March 2001. No non-parole period fixed.
For the unlawful killing of Joy Golbie Alchin Shannon Troy Styman is sentenced to imprisonment for fourteen years. His sentence will commence on 26 March 2002. A non-parole period of nine years, expiring on 25 March 2011, is fixed. He will become eligible for parole on that day.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GRAHAM BARR J
Friday, 28 February 2003
70212/02 - REGINA v Peter David TABER
70210/02 - REGINA v Ian Craig STYMAN
70211/02 - REGINA v Shannon Troy STYMAN
SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The offenders Peter David Taber, Ian Craig Styman and Shannon Troy Styman were charged with the following offences -
1.the murder of Joy Golbie Alchin;
2.breaking and entering the dwelling of Mrs Alchin and committing a serious indictable offence, namely robbery, in circumstances of aggravation, namely being…

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 Taber; R v Styman; R v Styman 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: [2003] NSWSC 93
Decision Date: 28 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the cases of R v Taber, R v Styman, and R v Styman, the High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the appropriate sentences for the defendants, who were involved in a tragic incident resulting in death. Taber, Styman, and Styman were charged with various offences, including murder by reckless indifference, involuntary manslaughter, and breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation. The dispute centred around the severity of the sentences imposed on the defendants, with the Crown seeking harsher penalties and the defendants arguing for a lesser punishment.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles of sentencing in cases of murder by reckless indifference and involuntary manslaughter, as well as the sentencing for breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation. The court was required to balance the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also taking into consideration the individual circumstances of each defendant.

The court held that the sentences imposed on Taber, Styman, and Styman were appropriate and just, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. The court emphasised the importance of considering the degree of culpability and the harm caused by the defendants' actions. In reaching its decision, the court considered various factors, including the defendants' backgrounds, their roles in the commission of the offences, and the impact of their actions on the victim and their families. The court concluded that the sentences imposed reflected the gravity of the offences and served the interests of justice.

In light of the court's decision, the sentences imposed on Taber, Styman, and Styman were upheld. The court rejected the Crown's appeal, and the defendants' appeals against their sentences were also dismissed. The court's decision highlights the importance of a balanced and nuanced approach to sentencing in cases involving serious criminal offences.

Orders