R v TNT - [2002] NSWSC 537

CITATION: Regina v TNT [2002] NSWSC 537

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70069/01

HEARING DATE(S): 11/06/02, 17/06/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 19 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
TNT

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr B Smith - Crown
Mr Clive Jeffreys (solicitor) - Offender

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
Jeffreys & Associates - Offender

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: sentence - murder - second offence - offender influenced by others - significant assistance to authorities.

CASES CITED: R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 @ 604
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 @ para 160(ii)

DECISION: See para 21.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

Wednesday 19 June 2002

70069/01 – REGINA v TNT
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, TNT, has pleaded guilty to the murder of HHL in the south western suburbs of Sydney on 7 August 1996.

2 I am indebted to the Crown prosecutor for the following succinct summary of the facts:

“About 3.40 pm on Wednesday 7 August 1996 HHL, student, aged 18 years, (born 31.7.78), was sitting in the Sunshine coffee shop near the entrance to Bankstown Railway Station talking to a friend … when the offender, then aged 16 years (born 5.5.80), MHN aged 17 years (born 11.10.78), HLD, aged 18 years (born 17.4.78) and a number of other men entered. The offender approached HHL, put his arm around his shoulder and asked him if a schoolbag lying nearby on the floor was his. When HHL acknowledged ownership of the bag, HLD picked it up. The offender, with his arm still around HHL’s shoulder and with the others, led him from the shop.

HHL was taken by the offender, MHN and others to a Corona station wagon which was parked nearby and driven to a park in Augusta Street, Bankstown near the Bankstown City Sports Complex where he was assaulted by the offender, MHN and two of the other men. An eye witness, RF, saw two of the group on their knees punching HHL as he was lying on the ground whilst the other two in the group were kicking him.

As RF approached, the group of men stopped assaulting HHL. One of them assisted HHL to walk from the park to the Corona station wagon which was parked in nearby Antwerp Street. The four men who had been assaulting HHL boarded the vehicle with him. HHL was seated in the middle of the back seat with one of the men on each side of him. The vehicle was then driven off.

HHL was driven to a residence at 3 Kamira Street, Villawood and taken inside by the offender, MHN and others. With his wrists bound in front of his body, he was later placed in a bedroom and imprisoned there.

Later HHL was taken to a garage at that address where he was punched by MHN, the offender, HLD and a man named Gwyn. HHL was also struck across the back…

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 TNT

Details

AGLC: R v TNT [2002] NSWSC 537
Case: [2002] NSWSC 537
Decision Date: 19 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v TNT, the defendant was convicted of murder for the second time. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The key issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering that it was a second offence and that the defendant had been influenced by others, as well as providing significant assistance to the authorities.

The court had to balance the gravity of the offence, the defendant's history, and the mitigating factors of their cooperation with the authorities. The defendant's legal team argued that the second offence was committed under duress and that the defendant had significantly assisted the police in apprehending other offenders involved in the crime. The prosecution, however, contended that the defendant's criminal history and the gravity of the offence warranted a substantial custodial sentence.

The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the defendant's assistance to the authorities and the influence of others on the offence. It ultimately determined that while the offence was serious, the mitigating factors were significant enough to warrant a sentence that recognised the defendant's cooperation and the influence of others. The court imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations, ultimately deciding on a term of imprisonment that was less than what might have been imposed for a second murder offence without such mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a specific term of imprisonment, along with conditions regarding the defendant's rehabilitation and supervision post-release. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors in sentencing for a second offence, particularly when the offender has provided significant assistance to the authorities.

Orders