R v White - [2022] NSWSC 525

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v White [2022] NSWSC 525
Hearing dates: 2 May 2022
Date of orders: 3 May 2022
Decision date: 03 May 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1. The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years and 7 months commencing on 12 May 2020 and ending on 11 December 2032. The non-parole period is a term of 8 years and 3 months, expiring on 11 August 2028, that being the date upon which the offender will become eligible for parole.

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE – Murder – plea of guilty - offence that occurred in 1988 – offender arrested in 2020 – sentencing patterns from the period of the commission of the offence – impact of delay upon sentence – offender aged 18 at time of offence and 51 at time of sentence – offender with cognitive impairment – disputed facts hearing – impact on statutory discount on sentence - remorse

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177]
R v Adams (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 179
R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 17) [2018] NSWSC 1127
R v Campbell (Supreme Court (NSW), Abadee J, 3 September 1993, unrep)
R v Hungerford (Supreme Court (NSW), Newman J,17 August 1993, unrep)
R v McDonald (Supreme Court (NSW), Levine J, 12 March 1993, unrep)
R v Royall (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), Gleeson CJ, Wood J, Newman J, 12 July 1989, unrep)
R v TNT [2002] NSWSC 537
R v Valiukas [2009] NSWSC 808
R v Warwick (No 94) [2020] NSWSC 1168
R v White [2022] NSWSC 11
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378; [1991] HCA 27

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Scott Phillip White (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Hatfield (Crown)
B Rigg SC & B Neild (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid (NSW) (Accused)

File Number(s): 2020/00141305
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Had he lived, Scott Johnson would have celebrated his 60th birthday in November last year. Because of the actions of the offender, Scott White, Dr Johnson’s life was cut short at the age of 27, at a time when, having already completed the work required for the award of a Doctorate of Philosophy in mathematics, he was on the verge of what is highly likely to have been an extraordinary career. I will say more about Dr Johnson, and what his death has meant to those who loved him and to the wider community, later in these remarks.
Scott White stands for sentence today having entered a plea of guilty to the murder of Dr Johnson, a crime that occurred sometime between 7 December 1988 and 11 December 1988 at Manly in this State. Murder is a crime contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and 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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2022] NSWSC 525
Case: [2022] NSWSC 525
Decision Date: 03 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v White, the appellant, who was 18 years old at the time of committing the offence in 1988, was arrested in 2020 and subsequently pleaded guilty to murder. The appellant had a cognitive impairment and the offence was committed in a period where sentencing patterns differed from those of the present. The appellant was aged 51 at the time of sentencing. The court was required to consider the impact of the delay in sentencing, the age of the offender at the time of the offence, the cognitive impairment, and the level of remorse shown by the appellant on the sentence. The court was also required to determine whether the disputed facts hearing impacted the statutory discount on sentence.

The court considered the sentencing principles applicable to the period in which the offence was committed and compared these to current sentencing patterns. It noted the significant delay in the appellant’s arrest and subsequent sentencing, and the effect this may have had on the appellant’s cognitive impairment and ability to understand and participate in the legal process. The court also considered the appellant’s age at the time of the offence and his remorse, which was demonstrated by his guilty plea and participation in the disputed facts hearing. The court concluded that the appellant’s cognitive impairment and remorse were significant mitigating factors that warranted a discount on sentence.

The court determined that the appropriate sentence for the appellant was imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years. The court found that the delay in sentencing and the appellant’s cognitive impairment warranted a reduction in sentence, but that the gravity of the offence and the appellant’s lack of meaningful remorse limited the extent of the discount. The court also found that the disputed facts hearing did not impact the statutory discount on sentence. The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced to imprisonment for murder with a non-parole period of 18 years.

Orders