R v White - [2023] NSWSC 193

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v White [2023] NSWSC 193
Hearing dates: 13 December 2022
Decision date: 10 March 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 42 years, backdated to commence on 17 March 2020 and to conclude on 16 March 2062, with an aggregate non-parole period of 30 years, so that the offender will be eligible for parole on 16 March 2050.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Murder – Where shooting in suburban neighbourhood – 226 bullets fired from two rifles over approximately one hour – One victim killed and multiple injured – Jury found offender guilty of murder and six further charges
SENTENCING – Where only issue at trial concerned defence of mental health or cognitive impairment – Where offender does not have mental health impairment but does have cognitive impairment – Where nexus between cognitive impairment and offences
SENTENCING – Where offender experienced disturbed childhood involving violence, sexual abuse and neglect – Where little insight into offences and qualified remorse – Where uncertain prospects of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A, 22A, 30E
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4C, 19A, 21, 21A, 23A, 33A, 61, 93GA, 195
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 7, 36
Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW), ss 4, 5, 28

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
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Supple (1870) 1 VR 151
Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex
Bradley Jason Mark White (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown)
M Hobart SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitors for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Dib & Associates (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/85581

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: On 14 October 2022, following a trial by jury, Bradley Jason Mark White (the offender) was found guilty of the following offences that he committed at Wyong in the early evening of 17 March 2020: the murder of Byron Tonks (the deceased); two counts of discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, the victims being Pamela Dickinson and Albert Tonks; and four counts of firing a firearm into a dwelling house with reckless disregard for the safety of any person, the premises being residences in Wyong at 2A Woodward Avenue and 9, 30 and 32 Cutler Drive. All of the offences were committed by the offender in the course of him discharging two firearms from his residence over a period of approximately one hour.
The offender is also to be sentenced for six related offences which are the subject of a certificate pursuant to s 166…

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 [2023] NSWSC 193
Case: [2023] NSWSC 193
Decision Date: 10 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v White, the respondent was found guilty by a jury of one count of murder and six other charges. The events leading to these charges took place in a suburban neighbourhood, where the respondent fired 226 bullets from two rifles over approximately one hour, resulting in one death and multiple injuries. The primary legal issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the respondent, considering the nature and severity of the offences, the respondent’s cognitive impairment, and his troubled background.

The court had to examine the nexus between the respondent's cognitive impairment and the offences committed. While the respondent did not suffer from a mental health impairment, he did have a cognitive impairment. This raised questions about the extent to which this impairment influenced his actions and culpability. Additionally, the court needed to assess the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation, given his lack of insight into his actions and his limited remorse. The court also considered the respondent’s childhood, marked by violence, sexual abuse, and neglect, which may have contributed to his current state.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged the severity of the crimes, noting the extensive use of firearms in a populated area. Despite the respondent's cognitive impairment, the court found that it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court concluded that while the respondent’s background was troubling, it did not fully excuse his conduct. The court also considered the lack of insight and limited remorse expressed by the respondent, which affected the prospects for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences, the respondent's cognitive impairment, and his background. The court ordered that the respondent be detained for a significant period, with a non-parole period set to ensure public safety.

Orders