R v Tailford (No 2)

Case [2021] NSWSC 695


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

Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260

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

R v Tailford [2021] NSWSC 248

R v Downs (1985) 3 NSWLR 312

Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Darryle Lee Tailford (Accused)
Representation:

Counsel:
L Shaw (Crown)
E Wilson SC (Accused)

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)
File Number(s): 2019/00068412

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
R v Tailford (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 695
Case
[2021] NSWSC 695
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Tailford (No 2), the defendant, Tailford, faced sentencing following a conviction for manslaughter. The defendant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter but was acquitted of murder during a trial. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the plea discount and the defendant's circumstances. Specifically, the court had to apply Part 3, Division 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which includes provisions for a 25% discount for an early guilty plea. The court also needed to consider the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen, particularly the impact of social exclusion on the defendant.

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.