Regina v DGP; Regina v PB - [2009] NSWSC 1154

CITATION: REGINA v DGP; REGINA v PB [2009] NSWSC 1154

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 18 September 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
30 October 2009

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Hall J at 1

DECISION: The offender DGP is sentenced to a non-parole period of five years to commence on 25 November 2007 and to expire on 24 November 2012 and to a parole period of three years to expire on 24 November 2015.
Accordingly, the first date upon which the offender DGP will be eligible for parole will be 24 November 2012.
The offender PB is sentenced to a non-parole period of three years to commence on 25 November 2007 and to expire on 24 November 2010 and to a parole period of two years to expire on 24 November 2012.
Accordingly, the first date upon which the offender PB will be eligible for parole will be 24 November 2010.
I make a finding of special circumstances and order that the whole of the terms of sentence of imprisonment be served by DGP and PB as juvenile offenders pursuant to s.19(3) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - two co-offenders - manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act - pleas of guilty - joint criminal enterprise - unprovoked attack - juvenile offenders - finding of special circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Carruthers v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 276
DAC v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 265
Gas v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198
IE v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 70
KT v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 51
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Maxwell v The Queen (1995-96) 184 CLR 501
McAuliffe v The Queen (1995) 183 CLR 108
Regina v Ali [2005] NSWSC 334
Regina v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
Regina v Clay, Lonsdale and JM [2006] NSWSC 1220
Regina v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306
Regina v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
Regina v Fletcher-Jones (1994) 75 A Crim R 381
Regina v Forbes (2005) 160 A Crim R 1
Regina v Green [1999] NSWCCA 97
Regina v Hoerler [2004] NSWCCA 183
Regina v Howard (1992) 29 NSWLR 242
Regina v KT [2007] NSWSC 83
Regina v MAK and MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381
Regina v MB [2006] NSWSC 1164
Regina v MacDonald (unreported, NSWCCA, 12 December 1995)
Regina v Mamae [2001] NSWSC 936
Regina v Mitchell (2007) 177 A Crim R 94
Regina v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 96)
Regina v SBF [2009] NSWCCA 231
Regina v Taiseni, Motuapuaka, Leota and Tuifua [2007] NSWSC 1090
Regina v Tan [2007] NSWSC 684
Regina v Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545
Regina v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Regina v Tzanis [2005] NSWCCA 274
Regina v VDN [2004] NSWSC 426
The Queen v Lavender (2005) 222 CLR 67
Whybrow v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 270
Wilson v The Queen (1991-92) 174 CLR 313

PARTIES: REGINA v DGP;

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v DGP; Regina v PB and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2009] NSWSC 1154
Decision Date: 30 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v DGP and Regina v PB, two co-defendants, DGP and PB, were convicted of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. Both pleaded guilty to the charges, acknowledging their involvement in an unprovoked attack. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for the juvenile offenders, taking into account the special circumstances of the case.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the nature of the joint criminal enterprise, the level of involvement of each defendant, and the impact of their age and immaturity on the sentencing. The court needed to balance the culpability of the offenders with the need to deter similar offences in the future and to rehabilitate the young offenders. The special circumstances were also a significant factor, considering the unprovoked nature of the attack and the potential for rehabilitation given their young age.

The court, in delivering its judgment, found that both defendants were integral to the joint criminal enterprise but recognised the unique challenges posed by sentencing juvenile offenders. The court highlighted the importance of considering the special circumstances, including the immaturity and potential for rehabilitation, in imposing sentences. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendants should be sentenced to detention in a youth justice centre, with a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The final orders included that DGP and PB be sentenced to detention in a youth justice centre for a period determined by the court, with a focus on rehabilitation and support services to address the underlying issues that led to the offending behaviour. The court also ordered that the sentences be reviewed periodically to ensure they remained appropriate and effective in achieving the goals of rehabilitation and deterrence.

Orders