R v Young - [2001] NSWSC 942

CITATION: R v Young [2001] NSWSC 942

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC SC 70203/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27/08/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 September 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Jason Raymond Young

JUDGMENT OF: Taylor AJ at 1

COUNSEL : Mr B Newport QC (Crown)
Mr A P Cook ( Offender)

SOLICITORS: DPP - Mr B Royce ( Crown)
F D Hammond & Associates ( Offender)

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - guilty plea - manslaughter - joint criminal enterprise - co-operation with authorities - youth - special circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: Sections 5,23, 44 Crimes (Sentencting Procedure) Act
Section 24 Crimes Act

CASES CITED: R v Veech [2001] NSWSC 68
R v Blacklidge NSWCCA December 1995
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397 at 402
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v S [2000] NSWCCA 13; (2000) 7 Crim LN 10
R v C 18 February 1993 Hunt CJ
R v Lewis (1998) 100 A Crim R 361
R v Wilkie NSWCCA 2 July 1992 Badgerry-Parker J
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 107

DECISION: Offender sentenced to imprisonment for six years. I set a non-parole period of four years to commence on 1 September 2000 and to conclude on 31 August 2004 when the offender is eligible to be considered for release to parole

- 16 -

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

TAYLOR A J

3 September 2001
70203/01

REGINA v JASON RAYMOND YOUNG

NON-PUBLICATION ORDER IN EFFECT (UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIAL OF MR MAMAE)

SENTENCE

Introduction

1 HIS HONOUR: On 27 August 2001 Jason Raymond Young was arraigned on indictment before this Court on one count of murder. He was charged that on 15 July 2000 at St Marys he murdered Pieter Izak Hage. He pleaded not guilty to the charge but guilty to the offence of manslaughter. The Crown accepted that plea in full discharge of the indictment. The offence is a contravention of s 24 of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

2 The Crown alleges the assault, which resulted in the death of Mr Hage, was part of an attempted robbery of the deceased. The offender has at all times maintained that the assault arose in circumstances other than attempted robbery; namely that he thought the deceased (then victim) said something to which he took exception. He then punched and kicked the victim who, shortly afterwards, died. The offender says he was in company with Junior Vaa Mamae who also kicked the victim.

3 The Court is required to resolve this factual dispute and determine the circumstances in which the assault took place. That finding is of particular importance because the unlawful and dangerous act amounting to manslaughter, upon which the Crown alleges, is one of an assault with intent to rob.

4 Before turning to the evidence in respect…

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 Young

Details

AGLC: R v Young [2001] NSWSC 942
Case: [2001] NSWSC 942
Decision Date: 3 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Young, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter, having pleaded guilty. The circumstances of the crime involved a joint criminal enterprise in which the defendant played a role. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering various factors such as the nature of his involvement, his cooperation with the authorities, and his youth. The appeal centred on the sentence imposed, which the defendant argued was excessive, and he sought to have it reduced.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to be given to the defendant's cooperation with authorities, his age at the time of the offence, and whether the sentence adequately reflected the special circumstances of the case. The court had to balance these factors against the seriousness of the crime and the need to ensure public safety and deterrence. The defendant's legal team argued that the sentence was too severe and did not sufficiently take into account the mitigating factors of his cooperation and youth.

The court acknowledged the defendant's cooperation with the authorities and his age as mitigating factors but ultimately determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court found that the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence outweighed the mitigating factors. The court emphasised that while the defendant's cooperation and youth were significant, they did not absolve him of the responsibility for his actions in the joint criminal enterprise. The court's decision was that the sentence should stand as imposed, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need to uphold public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders