Legal Research
Cases
Snibson v The King

Snibson v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 127 13 June 2023

Sentencing

Appeal

Standard Non-Parole Period

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Snibson v R [2023] NSWCCA 127
Hearing dates: 5 October 2022
Date of orders: 13 June 2023
Decision date: 13 June 2023
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1]
Davies J at [3]
Hamill J at [76]
Decision:
(1) Extend time for the bringing of the appeal to 1 April 2022.
(2) Grant leave to appeal.
(3) Uphold the appeal.
(4) Quash the sentences imposed by Buddin J in this Court on 5 September 2008 for Counts 2 and 4.
(5) In lieu, sentence the appellant as follows:
(a) For the murder of Gregory Hosa, sentenced to a non-parole period of 17 years imprisonment to commence on 29 January 2006 and to expire on 28 January 2023 with a balance of term of 7 years expiring on 28 January 2030.
(b) For the murder of Kathryn McKay, sentenced to a non-parole period of 17 years imprisonment to commence on 29 July 2011 and to expire on 28 July 2028 with a balance of term of 7 years expiring on 28 July 2035.
(6) The applicant will first be eligible for release to parole at expiration of the non-parole period for the murder of Kathryn McKay.
(7) The applicant is warned that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) applies to her and to these offences and her lawyers are directed to advise her of the possible implications to her of the provisions of that Act.
(8) Order pursuant to s 7 of the Courts (Suppression and Non-publication) Orders Act 2010 (NSW) that there be no publication of the redacted parts of the judgment throughout the Commonwealth for a period of 15 years on the grounds contained in s 8(1)(a) and (c) of the Act.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against sentence – murder – whether the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the significance of the standard non-parole period – “Muldrock error” – necessity to read sentencing remarks as a whole - where approach to sentence followed R v Way – where non-parole period arithmetically related to standard non-parole period – error demonstrated

Legislation Cited:
Courts (Suppression and Non-publication) Orders Act 2010 (NSW) s 10
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 18, 86
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW)
s 54A

Cases Cited:
Aldous v R [2012] NSWCCA 153
Aytugrul v R [2015] NSWCCA 139
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Black v R [2013] NSWCCA 265
Bolt v R [2012] NSWCCA 50
Butler v R [2012] NSWCCA 23
Buttrose v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] NSWCA 221
DL v R (No 2) [2017] NSWCCA 58
Davis v R [2015] NSWCCA 90
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Kim Leanne Snibson [2008] NSWSC 905
R v Stacey Lea-Caton [2007] NSWSC 1294
R v Way

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 Snibson v The King

Details

AGLC: Snibson v The King [2023] NSWCCA 127
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 127
Decision Date: 13 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Snibson v The King, the defendant appealed against his sentence for murder, contending that the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the significance of the standard non-parole period. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing judge made a "Muldrock error" by incorrectly applying the standard non-parole period in determining the non-parole period for the defendant’s sentence. The defendant argued that the sentencing remarks should be read as a whole to determine if there was a Muldrock error, and whether the judge adhered to the principles set out in R v Way.

The High Court examined the sentencing remarks to determine if there was an error in the approach to the significance of the standard non-parole period. It was found that the sentencing judge did not commit a Muldrock error. The judge had correctly considered the principles in R v Way and the arithmetic relationship between the non-parole period and the standard non-parole period. The remarks, when read in their entirety, showed that the judge appropriately balanced the circumstances of the case with the statutory framework for sentencing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders