R v ZT

Case [2022] NSWSC 511 29 April 2022

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v ZT
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2022] NSWSC 511
Hearing Date(s):	22, 23, 24, 25, 29 and 30 November 2021 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9 December 2021 11 March 2022
Date of Orders:	29 April 2022
Decision Date:	29 April 2022
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Walton J
Decision:	I sentence you to imprisonment of a non-parole period of 8 years commencing 5 September 2019 and expiring 4 September 2027 and the balance of the term of 4 years commencing 5 September 2025 and expiring on 4 September 2031.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – victim impact statement – young offender – objective seriousness – extended joint criminal enterprise - psychological evidence – family and developmental history – psychological history – physical and mental health – drug and alcohol use – sexual abuse history – criminal history – future offending – risk assessment – general and specific deterrence – special circumstances – orders
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290 BM v R [2019] NSWCCA 223 Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1 Casey v R [2015] NSWCCA 142 Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28 Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67 Clarke v R [2009] NSWCCA 49 Collier v R [2012] NSWCCA 213 Dalley v R [2002] NSWCCA 284 DPP v Hersi [2020] VCC 347 Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 GG v R [2018] NSWCCA 280 Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77 Kane v R [2001] NSWCCA 150 Langbein v R [2008] NSWCCA 38 Langbein v R [2013] NSWCCA 88 Lawson v R [2018] NSWCCA 215 Leslie v R [2009] NSWCCA 203 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Moore v R [2016] NSWCCA 185 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Munro v R [2006] NSWCCA 350 Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62 Pfitzner v R [2010] NSWCCA 314 R v Barbetta [2008] NSWSC 688 R v Christoff [2003] NSWCCA 52 R v Cramp [1999] NSWCCA 324 R v Dalley [2000] NSWSC 1154 R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349 R v Elfar [2003] NSWCCA 358 R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172 R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554 R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705 R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273 R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133 R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 R v Kaliti [2001] NSWCCA 268 R v Knight [2016] NSWCCA 292 R v KT [2008] NSWCCA 51 R v Little [2013] NSWCCA 288 R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287 R v McGourty [2002] NSWCCA 335 R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; (2002) 134 A Crim R 174 R v Safarjalani (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 105 R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152 R v Taha [2022] NSWCCA 46 R v Taufahema [2004] NSWSC…

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 ZT

Details

AGLC: R v ZT [2022] NSWSC 511
Case: [2022] NSWSC 511
Decision Date: 29 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v ZT was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, ZT, was convicted of murder in relation to an incident that involved an extended joint criminal enterprise. The key issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for ZT, taking into account various factors including the impact on the victim, ZT's background, and the principles of general and specific deterrence.

The court was required to consider the objective seriousness of the crime, the impact on the victim as expressed in the victim impact statement, and the mitigating factors presented by ZT's counsel. These factors included ZT's young age at the time of the offence, his psychological and developmental history, and his background of drug and alcohol use, sexual abuse, and prior criminal history. The court also needed to weigh the evidence regarding ZT's potential for rehabilitation and the risk of reoffending. The court's task was to balance these considerations to arrive at a sentence that appropriately reflects the gravity of the crime while also considering the circumstances of ZT's background and the broader principles of sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the significant impact of the murder on the victim and the community. The court considered the evidence of the extended joint criminal enterprise and the role ZT played within it, acknowledging the objective seriousness of the crime. However, the court also took into account the mitigating factors presented, including ZT's young age and the extensive history of psychological and developmental issues, drug and alcohol use, and prior criminal behaviour. The court assessed the risk of ZT reoffending and the potential for rehabilitation, concluding that while the crime was grave, a sentence that incorporated both punitive and rehabilitative elements was appropriate. The court ultimately determined that a custodial sentence was necessary but allowed for early parole eligibility, reflecting the balance between deterrence and the possibility of ZT's reform.

Orders