Legal Research
Cases
R v Turnbull

R v Turnbull

Case [2020] NSWSC 1785 16 December 2020

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turnbull [2020] NSWSC 1785
Hearing dates: 7 December 2020
Date of orders: 16 December 2020
Decision date: 16 December 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Sentenced to 18 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years and 6 months.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - stabbing murder - multiple stab wounds - whether intention to kill - inexplicable killing - lack of planning - lack of motive - murder committed on parole for reckless wounding - similar facts - serious aggravating feature - assessment of objective criminality
CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - subjective circumstances - Kamilaroi woman - history of trauma, dispossession and abandonment - sexual abuse - domestic violence - exposure to drugs and alcohol - profound deprivation - post traumatic stress disorder - resort to drugs - escaping the pain - impact on moral culpability - lack of focussed intervention - Walama Court

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 18
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 9, 21A, 25D, 47

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348; [1989] HCA 33
Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Sumpton (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 684
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Sharee Lorraine Turnbull
Representation:
Counsel:
G Newton (Regina)
J Manuell SC (Turnbull)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Regina)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Turnbull)

File Number(s): 2019/204354
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Jack Mulligan was just 25 years old on 28 September 2019 when his life was senselessly, tragically and inexplicably cut short. Jack's mother and other family members sat quietly in the back of the Court during the sentencing hearing of the young woman responsible for Jack's death. None of them felt able to cope with providing the Court with a victim impact statement, no doubt because of the emotional toll that would take on them. I completely understand their position. Like them, I do not have the words to express the tragedy of Jack's death. I do not know very much about Jack, but I know that his life was sacred and that his life was just as valuable as any victim of homicide whose family members provide the Court with victim impact statements explaining their grief, loss and suffering. I also know that he was greatly loved and valued by his mother and other family members because I observed their grief as they sat with dignity in the public gallery and listened to…

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 Turnbull

Details

AGLC: R v Turnbull [2020] NSWSC 1785
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1785
Decision Date: 16 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Turnbull, the accused was convicted of the murder of a man who was fatally stabbed in Melbourne. The High Court was called upon to review the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused. The appeal centred on whether the trial judge adequately considered the accused's subjective circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty. The accused, a woman of Kamilaroi descent, had a background marked by significant trauma, including sexual abuse, domestic violence, and exposure to drugs and alcohol. This history contributed to her suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and her reliance on drugs to escape pain. The court was required to assess whether these factors adequately mitigated the moral culpability of the accused and if they warranted a reduction in the severity of her sentence.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge properly took into account the accused's subjective circumstances in sentencing, particularly her history of trauma and the impact of these experiences on her moral culpability. The court examined whether the trial judge sufficiently recognised the unique challenges faced by the accused and the extent to which these circumstances influenced her actions. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge appropriately balanced the gravity of the offence against the accused's personal background and the mitigating factors presented. The court was tasked with determining if the sentence imposed adequately reflected the accused's objective criminality and subjective circumstances.

The High Court determined that the trial judge did not sufficiently consider the accused's subjective circumstances in sentencing. The court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately weigh the profound impact of the accused's traumatic background and its influence on her moral culpability. Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence imposed did not appropriately reflect the unique circumstances of the accused. The High Court quashed the sentence and ordered a resentencing hearing before a different judge, directing that the subjective circumstances be given appropriate consideration. The court emphasised the importance of a nuanced approach to sentencing that recognises the individual circumstances of the offender and ensures a just outcome.

Orders