Regina v Daniel Clayton Scott - [2010] NSWSC 1026

CITATION: REGINA v Daniel Clayton SCOTT [2010] NSWSC 1026

HEARING DATE(S): 02/08/10-04/08/10, 13/08/10, 27/08/10

JUDGMENT DATE :
10 September 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J

DECISION: Armed assault with intent to rob: FT 5 years from 17.06.08. Manslaughter: 11 years, NPP 8 years, from 17.06.09.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - accessory before the fact to manslaughter, armed assault with intent to rob

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Grupe [2007] NSWSC 1303
R v Puta and Ors [2001] NSWSC 225
R v Fraser and Spencer [2007] NSWSC 1449
R v Jackson [2009] NSWSC 168

PARTIES: REGINA (Crown)
Daniel Clayton SCOTT (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/92916

COUNSEL: Mr C Maxwell QC (Crown)
Mr D Dalton SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
S C Joyner - Matouk Joyner Lawyers (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

HIDDEN J

Friday 10 September 2010

2008/92916 Regina v Daniel Clayton SCOTT
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Daniel Clayton Scott, appeared before me for trial for his alleged involvement in the murder, and attempted abduction and armed robbery, of Victor Roderick Elliot in the north coast town of Chinderah on 26 May 2000. In the late afternoon of that day Mr Elliot was shot dead by two men wearing balaclavas.

2 The indictment contained three counts alleging that the offender was an accessory before the fact to:

(2) the detainer of Mr Elliot with intent to hold him for advantage; and

(3) the armed assault of Mr Elliot with intent to rob him.

3 The offender pleaded not guilty to the first and second counts. To the third count, accessory before the fact to armed assault with intent to rob, he pleaded guilty to accessory before the fact to assault with intent to rob simpliciter. That plea was not accepted by the Crown. A jury was empanelled.

4 However, the trial proceeded no further. Two days later, after discussions between counsel, he was re-arraigned. On the first count, accessory before the fact to murder, he pleaded not guilty but guilty of manslaughter. It was understood that this was a plea as accessory before the fact to that crime. He maintained his plea of not guilty to the second count, accessory before the fact to detaining for advantage. However, he pleaded guilty to the third count as it was framed, that is, accessory before the fact to armed assault with intent to rob. The Crown accepted those pleas in respect of the first and third counts in satisfaction of the indictment. He stands for sentence for those two offences.

Facts

5 I have a lengthy statement of agreed facts, which I shall summarise in these remarks. The offender’s father, Harry Scott, was a builder by trade and a longstanding friend of the…

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 Regina v Daniel Clayton Scott

Details

AGLC: Regina v Daniel Clayton Scott [2010] NSWSC 1026
Case: [2010] NSWSC 1026
Decision Date: 10 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Crown sought an appropriate sentence for Daniel Clayton Scott, who had been found guilty of being an accessory before the fact to manslaughter and armed assault with intent to rob. The offence was committed in relation to a planned armed robbery that resulted in the death of an innocent bystander. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Scott, considering both the gravity of the crimes and the role he played in them.

The court needed to weigh the severity of the crimes, the role of the defendant in the commission of the crimes, and any mitigating factors that might exist. The Crown argued for a lengthy custodial sentence to reflect the gravity of the crimes and the need for general deterrence. The defence submitted that the defendant's role was peripheral, and that he had shown genuine remorse and should be given a lesser sentence. The court had to balance these competing considerations and decide on an appropriate sentence.

After considering the arguments and the evidence presented, the court determined that the crimes were of a serious nature, warranting a substantial custodial sentence. The court found that while Scott's role was not that of the principal, he played a significant part in planning the offence, which facilitated the commission of the crimes. The court also took into account Scott's background and the mitigating factors presented by the defence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Scott to a term of imprisonment reflecting the seriousness of the crimes, while also acknowledging his peripheral role and the mitigating factors.

Orders