Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Tailford (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 695 Hearing dates: 2-5, 9-12, 15 March, 4 June 2021 Date of orders: 15 June 2021 Decision date: 15 June 2021 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: (1) The offender is convicted for that, on 2 March 2019 at Orange in the State of New South Wales, he did unlawfully kill Richard Eggins.
(2) The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months, commencing 13 June 2019 and concluding 12 September 2023, the balance of term being a further 3 years and 3 months, expiring 12 December 2026.
(3) The remarks on sentence, the transcript of today’s proceedings and the reports of Dr Martin and Dr Ashkar will be provided to Corrective Services.
Catchwords: CRIME – Sentencing – Manslaughter – Early plea of guilty to manslaughter – trial for murder – not guilty to murder – Operation of Part 3, Division 1A of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act – 25% discount applied – subjective circumstances – Bugmy principles – social exclusion – sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(3), 25A(2), 25D(2)(a), 25E
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 18(1)(b), 19A, 24
Criminal Procedure Act1986 (NSW), s 153
Justice Legislation Amendment (Committals and Guilty Pleas) Act 2017 (NSW), Sch 2, cl 5
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
GAS v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22
Karim v The Queen (2013) 83 NSWLR 268; [2013] NSWCCA 23
Kentwell v R (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 96
Magaming v The Queen (2013) 252 CLR 381; [2013] HCA 40
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Black (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 77
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Gleeson CJ,12 December 1995, unrep)
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67; (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Gleeson CJ, 20 November 1995, unrep)
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Gareth Mullaya Lewis [2014] NSWSC 1127
R v Holmes (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 570
R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
R v Nitu [2013] 1 Qd R 459; 222
Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Darryle Lee Tailford (Accused)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
L Shaw (Crown)
E Wilson SC (Accused)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)
File Number(s): 2019/00068412
REMARKS ON SENTENCE
-
HIS HONOUR: The Court has the task of sentencing Darryle Lee Tailford for the offence of manslaughter. Mr Tailford was charged with two offences, the unusual circumstances of which were dealt with in a preliminary judgment on 2 March…
Continue reading R v Tailford (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Tailford (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 695
- Case
- [2021] NSWSC 695
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the 25% discount for an early guilty plea should be applied, but the defendant's subjective circumstances, including social exclusion, needed to be carefully considered. The court assessed the extent of the discount in light of the Bugmy principles, which emphasised the importance of ensuring that a significant discount does not result in an unjust outcome. The court found that while the plea discount was appropriate, the defendant's circumstances warranted a sentence that reflected the unique nature of his social exclusion and its impact on his culpability. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that balanced the plea discount with the need to address the defendant's personal circumstances.
The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence for manslaughter, taking into account the 25% discount for the early guilty plea and the defendant's subjective circumstances. The court ensured that the sentence was proportionate and reflected the defendant's social exclusion, in line with the principles outlined in Bugmy v The Queen. The specific details of the sentence were not provided in the text, but the court's approach demonstrated a careful consideration of both the statutory discount and the defendant's individual circumstances.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.