R v TB - [2024] NSWSC 447

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v TB [2024] NSWSC 447
Hearing dates: 15 April 2024
Date of orders: 24 April 2024
Decision date: 24 April 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme AJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months.

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – juvenile offender – manslaughter – plea of guilty – youth gang bashing of child – assault captured on video and posted on social media – serious example of manslaughter – reduced moral culpability on account of age, immaturity of youth and background of profound deprivation – remorseful – good prospects of rehabilitation – special circumstances for parole flexibility as offender matures – sentence to be served as a juvenile offender

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 6, 19(1), 19(3)(b), Pt 3 Div 4
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159; (2010) 201 A Crim R 379
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51; (2008) 182 A Crim R 571
R v BE [2023] NSWSC 1007
R v BL [2024] NSWSC 51
R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; (2001) 124 A Crim R 451
R v Sione; R v Dawson [2024] NSWSC 378
TM v R [2023] NSWCCA 185

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
TB (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
R Khalilizadeh (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service

File Number(s): 2021/224211
Publication restriction: Nil.

JUDGMENT

TB is a child who is to be sentenced for the manslaughter of Jason Galleghan at Doonside on 4 August 2021.^[1]
1. There has been consent to the identification of the deceased pursuant to s 15E of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). The date of the murder on the indictment is 6 August 2021 to reflect the date of death.
Manslaughter is a “serious children’s indictable offence” which must be dealt with according to law rather than under Pt 3, Div 4 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).^[2]
2. Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act, s 3(1), s 17
The maximum penalty for manslaughter is imprisonment for 25 years.

The offence

Two co-offenders have previously been sentenced for murder: R v BE [2023] NSWSC 1007 and R v BL [2024] NSWSC 51. The statement of agreed facts in each case differ in some respects with those in the present case and with the facts found in the judge-alone trial over which I presided: R v Sione; R v Dawson [2024] NSWSC 378. I propose to confine attention to the facts agreed between the parties in the present case.
Police obtained footage from domestic CCTV cameras as well as mobile phone data which allowed precise times to be assigned to some of the events described in the agreed facts.
The following people (with their ages indicated) were involved in the homicide and the events leading up to it:

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 TB

Details

AGLC: R v TB [2024] NSWSC 447
Case: [2024] NSWSC 447
Decision Date: 24 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v TB involved a young offender who entered a guilty plea for manslaughter following a violent assault on a child that was captured on video and subsequently posted on social media. The incident was part of a youth gang-related crime, leading to the death of the victim. The case was heard in the relevant court, which had to determine the appropriate sentence for the offender, taking into account the gravity of the crime, the offender's age, background, and potential for rehabilitation.

The court had to navigate the competing considerations of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing the juvenile offender. It had to assess the circumstances of the crime, including the serious nature of the assault and its public dissemination, against the mitigating factors of the offender's age, immaturity, and background of profound deprivation. The court also needed to consider the offender's expressed remorse and the prospects for rehabilitation, as well as the special circumstances that might warrant flexibility in parole eligibility as the offender matures.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of tailoring the sentence to the individual circumstances of the offender while also serving the broader objectives of justice. It recognised the gravity of the crime and the need for a punitive response, but balanced this with the recognition of the offender's age and potential for rehabilitation. The court ultimately determined that a sentence that allows for parole flexibility as the offender matures would be appropriate, recognising both the need for punishment and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to serve their term as a juvenile offender, with parole eligibility to be reviewed as they mature, considering their rehabilitation progress and any changes in circumstances. This approach reflects a nuanced understanding of juvenile justice principles, aiming to address the crime's seriousness while providing a path for the offender's future reintegration into society.

Orders