HER HONOUR: As a general rule, a judgment on sentence such as the Court is about to deliver commences with the details of the offence before the Court and proceeds to summarise the evidence in the case. Instead, I intend to begin by saying something about Ned Gronow and what his violent death has meant to his family; and something about Rayne Aylward and the process the Court must undertake in sentencing the young man who stabbed Ned to death in the early hours of 25 June 2022. I hope that this approach will help all those who have an interest in that process, and particularly Ned's family, to make sense of the reasons I am shortly to give for the sentence that will be imposed upon Mr Aylward.
Ned Gronow was 17 years old when he was stabbed to death. He was the youngest child of his loving parents, and the adored baby sibling of his older brothers and sister. He was also an uncle, a grandson, and a friend. Ned was a young man who was on the cusp of adult life, a life he looked forward to plunging into, with eager plans for his future. He had, only a day or so before, obtained his learner driver's licence, with driving being one of the great markers of the transition from an Australian childhood into adult life. Everything lay before Ned Gronow on that winter's evening of 24 June 2022, when he fell asleep in his bed.
One of the greatest tragedies of the death of a child is that the long dreamt of future will never materialise; the "millions of breaths" Ned's father spoke of in his Victim Impact Statement that will never be taken. So much possibility reposes in a child, and all those many possible lives not lived are what is lost when a child dies.
It was clear from the Victim Impact Statements so movingly given to the Court by Tom Gronow and Ned's mother, Julie Gronow, that Ned had the benefit of a loving family and a very good upbringing, with family who cared for him. His family has been left bereft by his murder.
Rayne Aylward's childhood was something very different to that enjoyed by Ned. Mr Aylward experienced a childhood marred by physical and sexual abuse and surrounded by drug use. He witnessed domestic violence from his father to his mother and, when he tried to protect his mother, he was himself subjected to physical violence at his father's hands. A lifetime of brutality and instability leaves a mark on any child, as the evidence establishes it did on the offender. That is a feature of relevance to these proceedings.
In sentencing Mr Aylward for his terrible crime, the Court must endeavour to recognise the great gravity of the crime of taking a young life, without losing sight of the fact that the murderer in this instance was barely more than a child himself, and one who had been very badly let down by the adults who had the responsibility of caring for him. In sentencing Mr Aylward, the Court must try to achieve several competing outcomes. Among them, the Court is required to punish the offender and make him accountable for his conduct, but also to promote his rehabilitation. The great harm done by him must be recognised, but in a context where the Court is obliged to give effect to his youth and dysfunctional background as features that will lessen the sentence to be imposed. These features can and do pull in quite different directions, some demanding a higher sentence, and others requiring that sentence to be reduced.
Of all the outcomes that sentencing Mr Aylward can achieve, one that cannot be met is to make good the enormity of Ned's loss. No sentence that any court could impose can achieve that. Ned's death cannot be answered by a sentence of so many years imprisonment. His life cannot be measured out and repaid by any term of imprisonment. No price can pay for a young man's life. That is not what the sentencing process is intended to or can achieve.
Whilst Mr and Mrs Gronow in particular may feel that the Court has failed to adequately address Ned's death and their very great grief, I hope the completion of the criminal proceedings today may at least bring some measure of finality to a process that I know can itself represent another layer of pain. No-one who heard the deeply moving accounts of their loss and grief given to the Court by Mr and Mrs Gronow could do other than feel great sympathy for them, and a fervent hope that they will find some peace. I extend my sympathies and those of the Court to them for the death of their beloved son.
The sentence that must be imposed is for the murder of Ned Gronow, who the offender stabbed to death as Ned lay asleep in his bed in his family home on 25 June 2022. Mr Aylward was charged the following day, 26 June 2022. He entered a plea of guilty to the offence of murder when the matter was in the Local Court, and was committed to this Court for sentence. He adhered to his plea when arraigned before me on 3 May 2024. His early plea of guilty entitles him at law to a discount on the sentence that would otherwise be imposed of 25%. Having been convicted at arraignment, the offender appears before the Court to be sentenced.
Murder is an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In the circumstances of this case, a standard non-parole period ("SNPP") of 25 years applies.
[2]
The Facts of the Crime
The facts of the offender's crime are not in dispute, and an agreed statement of them forms part of Exhibit ("Ex.") A before the Court. The following summary is taken from that document.
Ned Gronow had met and become friends with the offender's family member, at school. The two had a number of friends in common and they moved in the same social group. One of their mutual friends, and a neighbour of Ned Gronow, was ED. [Family member] often stayed overnight at Ms ED's home. She also sometimes stayed at Ned's home overnight, sleeping on a couch.
On 7 April 2022, [family member] was at Ms ED's home with a group of young people, including the offender. The offender, who was then aged 18, met Mr Gronow for the first time on this evening. [Family member] who spent that night with other friends at Ned's home, would later tell the offender that Ned had hurt her when she was at his home. The Crown does not concede that any harm was done to [family member] by Ned, and it is something which this Court cannot, and need not, determine. What is of significance is that [family member] complained to the offender about the injury, and he accepted that harm had been done. This proved to be the feature that caused the offender to commit his shocking crime.
On 18 June 2022, [family member] told the offender what had happened in a series of text messages. She repeated the same information on the night of 24 June 2022.
On that evening of 24 June, Ned Gronow was at his family home. He had been unwell with influenza and had fallen asleep early in the evening. His parents, Julie and Tom Gronow, went out for dinner and, on returning home at about 9.30pm, Mrs Gronow saw that her son was asleep in his bed. Mrs Gronow went to bed herself, with her husband joining her sometime later. By a little after 11pm the household was asleep. The front door was probably unlocked.
The offender was out with a friend that night; he had consumed a quantity of alcohol and illicit drugs. Separately, [family member] was also out with friends. The two exchanged multiple messages and, as the evening went on, argued via Snapchat messages. At one point the offender sent a message saying that he didn't care what happened to [family member], to which she responded by referring to her complaint about what Ned had done, suggesting the offender didn't care about her. The terms of these messages reflect their young ages at that time.
At 12am on 25 June 2024, the offender called [family member's] friend ED via Snapchat and asked for Ned's address. Ms ED told him the street name. The two exchanged some further messages, with the offender telling Ms ED:
"Im gonna cut neds lungs out N kill hang.his fucken mutha".
At 12:23am, the offender sent a further message to Ms ED, telling her (in part): "I'm going to kill him". Soon after, he telephoned Ms ED and asked her for the street number of Ned Gronow's house. He told her, "You should see the knife I've got on me its massive".
At around 1am, the offender went to and entered the home of Ned Gronow and stabbed him multiple times using the large knife he had told Ms ED he had. He stabbed Ned 12 times to the head and torso, with these injuries rapidly causing his death.
Ned's parents had been woken by the sound of their dog barking and a noise in the house, as if someone was moving towards the front door. Mrs Gronow got out of bed and walked into the hallway. She saw that the front door to the house was ajar and noticed that there was blood on it. She closed the door and walked into her son's bedroom, where she saw him on his bed in a pool of blood. She may have screamed, but whether or not she did, her husband soon came into the bedroom. Mr Gronow saw his son half sitting up in bed - he seemed dazed, and was unable to speak. His breathing was heavy.
Mrs Gronow contacted the emergency services operator at 1:22am. They were instructed to commence CPR, which Tom Gronow performed. Despite his efforts, Mr Gronow saw that his son had stopped breathing. His face felt cold. Police officers arrived at 1:40am and an officer, Constable Aitken, took over CPR from Tom Gronow. Minutes later, ambulance services arrived but, despite the efforts of everyone present to save the boy, the paramedics could see that Ned Gronow was dead.
A later post mortem examination determined that 12 separate sharp force wounds had been inflicted, distributed over Ned's head, neck, chest, back, left arm pit, left hand and lower leg. The incised wound inflicted to Ned's left hand is consistent with a defensive wound.
A crime scene was established at the home.
The offender, having left the house, telephoned Ms ED at 1:30am, telling her, "I killed him". When Ms ED queried his statement, the offender said, "Yes, there's a lot of blood on me, I've got to get home. I stabbed him in the throat about seven times… I've got to get home before the cops see me."
At 2:30am, the offender sent a text message to [family member] saying something like, "Don't worry about Ned anymore". He sent multiple messages to a friend and tried to call his friend numerous times in the early hours of the morning.
Later that morning, at 10am, Ms ED sent the offender a message asking, "So did you really kill him". The offender replied in the affirmative, commenting, "That's what he gets" for the harm he believed had been done to [family member].
An hour or so later [family member] heard the news of Ned Gronow's death. She checked her messages and saw a message from the offender saying, "I'm sorry. I love you. I was a drunk idiot". When she saw the offender later that day, she asked him if he would admit to what he had done. The offender said, "I'll own up to it. I will just stay calm and own up to it". He said he did it because of what Ned Gronow had done to [family member]. He said, "I got a kitchen knife and just did it." He later said that Ned had been asleep at the time.
That evening, ED contacted the Triple 0 operator and nominated the offender as having killed Ned Gronow. With that information, police officers attended the offender's home soon after 10:30am on Sunday 26 June 2022 and arrested him for murder. Mr Aylward told the officers he had no idea what they were talking about. During a later electronically recorded interview the offender again denied any knowledge of the crime. Forensic evidence, however, tied the offender to the murder, as did his admissions to friends, and CCTV and witness observations of a male fitting the offender's description in the area of the Gronow home at the relevant time.
[3]
Other Evidence in the Crown Case
A NSW criminal history shows that the offender has no record of convictions. His custodial record establishes that he entered custody on the day of his arrest and has remained in custody ever since. The sentence imposed today must comprehend that period of remand.
As touched upon earlier, the Court also heard from Julie Gronow and Tom Gronow, who expressed some of the devastation that has been with them ever since the terrible moment, which Mrs Gronow called "one dark night", when they entered their son's room to find him grievously injured and dying. Mrs Gronow said that her life changed forever on the day her youngest son was murdered. She said that, having found her son drenched in his own blood, she will never be able to "unsee" what she saw on that early morning. Because Ned died a violent death, she was not even able to hold her son in her arms, but was required to leave him lying alone on the floor of his bedroom, in a home that had become a crime scene. She feels that her own life as she knew it ended with her son's death. Her grief and despair were palpable in the court room.
Mr Gronow also told the Court about the profound impact Ned's death has had upon him. Like his wife, he said that his old life has vanished, and he feels that he exists in what he referred to as "the shadows". He mourns the days and years he will not spend with his son, the life he will not watch his son living. He spoke eloquently of and to the boy he movingly described as his beautiful son. His pain was hard to witness.
Mr and Mrs Gronow have not been able to return to their home. Despite the removal of carpet from Ned's bedroom the floorboards are still stained with his blood and Mrs Gronow cannot bear to go there. She and Mr Gronow live with family in a makeshift arrangement, homeless, with no "normal" life left to them. Mrs Gronow suffers physically from her grief. She is haunted by her unbearable loss and feels that her life and her family is broken. Like his wife, Mr Gronow feels utterly broken by the loss of his son, with grief consuming his life. He too is beset by the physical symptoms of his overwhelming emotional pain, and he feels as if he exists in shadows, unable to connect with reality. His life has changed forever, and the enormity of his loss of his beloved son overwhelms him.
There is no question that the injury even beyond Ned's murder is very great, and I accept that the harm done to the Gronow family is an aspect of the harm done to the community by this crime. That the crime of murder can lead to such all-encompassing grief and pain for others is one reason why the offence of murder carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It is a crime that goes beyond the act of killing, and extends to the great damage done to the family, loved ones, and community of the person whose life was taken.
[4]
The Subjective Case
The offender gave evidence before the Court on 29 July 2024. He began by reading two letters he had written earlier in the year: the first was to Mr and Mrs Gronow; the second was to the Court. In addressing himself to Mr and Mrs Gronow, the offender acknowledged that they may not wish to hear from him, but said he wished nevertheless to express his sorrow for what he had done in killing their son. He described himself as "putrid" and deserving of the punishment to be imposed upon him, stating that he would accept that punishment as his due and serve the penalty willingly. He said that what he had done was disgusting and he was sorry for it.
The offender also described his personal circumstances and the dysfunctional childhood he endured not, he said, as an excuse, but so that Mr and Mrs Gronow might get a glimpse of who he was.
In his letter to the Court the offender reiterated his sorrow for the pain, hurt, and suffering he had caused Mr and Mrs Gronow and all Ned's family. He extended that apology to the Court, saying that he was broken by the knowledge of what he had done, with his memories of that night ever present. He said that he took full responsibility for his crime.
Mr Aylward gave an account of his childhood, describing a profoundly disadvantaged upbringing in which he was the victim of physical and sexual abuse, being raised in squalid and dysfunctional circumstances. He said that his father frequently beat him, often after he had sought to intervene to protect his mother from violence. The offender was also abused by persons associated with his acquaintances and his school. When he was aged 14, and a student at school, a teacher to whom he had confided the abuse he suffered at home, targeted him for sexual assault, under the guise of protecting him from his father.
The offender was surrounded by drug use and, when he was 12, an adult whom he did not know "stuck a needle in [his] arm and told [him] it would be alright". The offender said he has used drugs and alcohol since a young age although, since entering custody, he has been placed on medication to assist him with abstention from drugs. He has not used prohibited drugs for about 3 months.
The offender has also undertaken vocational courses in custody and made application to undertake many other courses, including a course to prepare him for tertiary education. His wish is to study mathematics and engineering. Mr Aylward said that before going into custody he had been working at a grocery store and saving money to buy a car, a car being necessary to obtaining an apprenticeship as a diesel mechanic. He has not yet been admitted to the preparatory course or other courses because of his status as an unsentenced offender.
The offender tendered a report prepared by Allison Cullen, forensic psychologist, who interviewed him on two occasions via an audio visual platform, over a total of 3 hours. Mr Aylward said in evidence that he had done his best to tell Ms Cullen the truth and the history obtained by Ms Cullen is consistent with the offender's evidence to the Court. Ms Cullen was provided with relevant documentary material, including the agreed facts, and she also spoke with the offender's mother, Rebecca Norman, via telephone.
Ms Cullen reported that the offender was born in July 2003. He gave her an account of a childhood marked by significant instability, as his parents abused illicit drugs and alcohol, and were involved in drug related crime. Mr Aylward's father - an affiliate of outlaw motorcycle gangs - was violent to his mother and to him, with his mother telling Ms Cullen that the offender had been "kicked with steel capped boots" and "pushed off verandas", being subjected to violent assaults she said, "so many times". The offender [redacted] moved residences numerous times in the first 10 years of his life, with his parents separating when he was about 11 years old. Thereafter, the offender was shunted from one parent to the other and back again, frequently living in filthy and uncertain circumstances, and sometimes being homeless. He was subjected to a materially and emotionally deprived childhood, with parents who prioritised their own drug use over the welfare of their children.
The offender gave Ms Cullen an account of the sexual abuse that commenced when he was about 14 years old, at school, wherein he was subjected to sexual acts including penetrative acts.
He said that he started using marijuana and consuming alcohol at the age of 12. Although his use of these substances was said by the offender to be "social" at first, it increased to daily usage when he was around 14 or 15 years old. At this point the offender also began using what he referred to as "pills, MDMA, ice, Zanax and Oxys." He admitted to having "dabbled in heroin a few times". He ceased drug use after being prescribed an opiate replacement in custody.
The offender referred to a number of health conditions, including what was described as a "congenital heart condition" which will require surgery at some stage; and myopia causing significant blindness in one eye. A degenerative bone disorder is causing the offender pain and numbness in his back, whilst a gastro-oesophageal reflux disorder has led to concerns as to a stomach ulcer. The offender has refused investigation for this condition. The only pain medication available to the offender in custody is Panadol, which he has found ineffective.
Ms Cullen administered a number of psychological tests to the offender. One assessment inventory pointed to the offender as an individual with an extremely negative evaluation of himself, an outcome that Ms Cullen noted could point to a "cry for help". His background of substance abuse was reflected in test results, with Ms Cullen suggesting that drug use had likely led to severe disruptions in relationships and work performance. The pattern of personality traits presented by the offender is consistent with an individual in "a state of crisis". He is likely to act impulsively and engage in self-destructive behaviours, exhibiting a fear of abandonment. Scoring pointed to the offender experiencing "a discomfiting level of anxiety and tension". On screening for childhood abuse the offender's score exceeded "the cut-off", pointing to symptomology commensurate with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD").
Actuarial assessment tools measuring risk returned a low-risk score against the prospect of recidivism.
Of the death of Ned Gronow the offender told Ms Cullen:
"I was drinking and partying… I'd been up for days. I was out of it. […] me and [family member] got into an argument. I think it was me being a drunk idiot. She told me that someone I knew had hurt her […]. I was so angry. I know the pain she'd feel […]. It a was like a snap decision … to kill him".
The offender said he had little memory of stabbing Mr Gronow, but said that afterwards he "knew [he'd] done something so fucked up". He expressed remorse to Ms Cullen, saying:
"I feel fucking disgusted. I know I did it for [family member] but there's some poor family out there without a kid. If that happened to my brother, my poor mother. I fucking hate it […]".
He repeated that last statement whilst crying, as Ms Cullen observed, inconsolably. [1] The offender's mother told Ms Cullen that he had repeatedly expressed remorse for his actions. She said, "He has said how sorry he is and if he could change it, he would…"
Ms Cullen suggested that:
"[…] Mr Aylward was subjected to a significantly emotionally and socially deprived childhood characterised by: family violence (including perinatal, infant and childhood exposure to domestic violence and physical abuse from his father), early and enduring exposure to parental substance […] abuse, transience (including both geographical and familial placements) attributable to financial hardships and paternal criminality; homelessness and brief accommodation in unsanitary environments; interrupted school attendance and corresponding disruptions in social attachments; as well as childhood sexual assault perpetrated by a trusted teacher.
The unstable, chaotic, and transient environment in which Mr Aylward was raised undoubtedly predisposed him to: marked (anticipatory) anxiety; feeling 'too much' for his parents to handle thus a vulnerability toward self-subjugation driven by self-preservation… a withdrawn interpersonal style; a poor self-concept, distrust; a poor sense of identity; as well as hostility and bitterness…
Moreover, Mr Aylward's parents' lack of emotional control, as modelled through their domestic violent relationship and long-term reliance on substances (including alcohol and methylamphetamine) further hindered his capacity to acquire adaptive coping mechanisms."
Ms Cullen considers that it was likely that at the time of the commission of the offence the offender satisfied the diagnostic criteria for complex post-traumatic stress disorder, moderate alcohol use disorder, and moderate amphetamine-type stimulant use disorder. She concluded:
"The aetiology of Mr Aylward's PTSD, coupled with his entrenched self-perception as the 'protector' [redacted] is indeed relevant in understanding his criminality. As the eldest… and the only male, Mr Aylward instilled the need to protect [redacted] from harmful environments […]. It is highly probable that [redacted] provided him his only sense of adequacy. Accordingly, the argument that ensued between Mr Aylward and [family member] in the hours preceding the index offence, coupled with his already affected neurobiological/cognitive functions and effective resistance behaviours, as related to his PTSD (following his CSA, and physical abuse from his father) impaired Mr Aylward's decision making, consequential thinking, emotional regulation, perspective taking, and self-monitoring. These functions were further impeded by Mr Aylward's (comorbid) polysubstance misuse and corresponding impulsivity at the time of his offending. Additionally, at the commission of the index offence/s, Mr Aylward was aged 18 years and accordingly his pre-frontal cortex has not quite reached full development, thus making him more vulnerable to suboptimal cognitive functioning. Moreover, prior sexual victimisation deprives survivors of a sense of personal agency and control necessary to extricate themselves from risky situations, which in turn increases their vulnerability to entering risky situations […]. It is therefore highly likely that [the complaint from his family member] triggered Mr Aylward's own repressed traumas associated with feeling helpless and hopeless, which in turn impacted upon his (already deficient) cognitive abilities about how to resolve the acute pain both he and [family member] were feeling. Accordingly, this assessment reveals a direct nexus between Mr Aylward's mental health impairments (i.e., cPTSD) and [the offence before the Court]. In other words, in the absence of Mr Aylward's CSA (thus PTSD) and his entrenched self-perception as the 'protector' [redacted], he would have been unlikely to have committed the offence."
The balance of the evidence in the offender's case consisted of correspondence from the offender's mother, Ms Norman; his aunt, Ms Browne; his uncle, Mr Browne; and a family friend, Ms Young. Each of the authors expressed their distress at the offender's actions, and their sadness for the Gronow family.
Additionally, Ms Norman confirmed that the account her son gave to Ms Cullen of his childhood was correct. She said that the offender recognised the terrible wrong he had done and would live with the burden of that for the rest of his life. She described him as remorseful. Ms Browne too confirmed that the offender's upbringing had been dysfunctional, with Mr Aylward having to take on the role of protector [redacted]. Despite the difficulties of his childhood, Ms Browne said that the offender completed Year 12, and was working with a view to commencing an apprenticeship. She too regards him as extremely remorseful, as does Mr Browne. Mr Browne described the offender as a young man with a strong work ethic and strong family values who, despite his crime, can become a valuable member of the community. Ms Young echoed these sentiments.
[5]
Consideration
Having set out the evidence the Court is required to make an assessment of what the law refers to as the objective gravity of the crime. This assessment is undertaken in a context where all murders are very serious crimes. Indeed, murder is one of the very few offences that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment upon conviction, and that is because it is such a grave crime and one that is acknowledged to do great harm. Murder is an offence that extinguishes the life of a member of the community and does untold damage to those who loved that person. It adversely affects the entire community.
The offender's crime is a very serious one, with a number of features underlining that conclusion. There was some planning, albeit minimal in nature, poorly thought out, and of short duration. The motivation for the crime was vengeance for a wrong the offender perceived had been done to his [family member]. Ned Gronow was, at 17, still a child under 18 years of age and the community views the murder of children with particular horror, something reflected by the greater SNPP - 25 years imprisonment as opposed to 20 years - that applies to the murder of a child. The crime was committed in Ned Gronow's home, a place where he should have been completely safe from harm. The offender entered the home unlawfully, in the very early hours of the morning, when its occupants could be expected to be at home asleep. Because Ned was asleep at the commencement of the assault upon him, he was particularly vulnerable, and had no opportunity to avoid, or defend himself from, attack. The offender used a weapon, and one that he himself described as a sizable knife (against the recognition that murder can be committed without a weapon). The offender used the knife to inflict 12 separate wounds, principally directed to the head and upper torso, in what was a savage, if not in my conclusion a sustained, attack. His intention in doing so was to kill Ned Gronow, as he had told Ms ED he would. There is evidence - the thumb injury consistent with a defensive wound, and the fact that Ned was alive when his parents came into his bedroom - from which it can be inferred that Ned was awoken by the attack upon him, and experienced what must have been crippling confusion, pain and fear in his last moments. As I have earlier observed, the harm done has been very great.
These features tend to elevate the gravity of this crime, and call for a stern sentence to be imposed.
There are other features, however, that point to a need for the sentence to be tempered. At 18 years of age at the time of committing this crime, the age differential between the offender and Ned was small, reducing the practical significance of the SNPP somewhat. As little more than a child himself the law requires that the offender's young age be taken into consideration. Although the offender had passed his 18th birthday, the principles with respect to the sentencing of children remain of relevance. There is, after all, little difference between a person somewhat under 18 years and one somewhat over 18 years. In such circumstances the Court must have regard to the principles laid down in KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51 and other decisions of the appellate courts. At [22]-[23] of KT the then Chief Judge at Common Law said:
"The principles relevant to the sentencing of children have been discussed on many occasions. Both considerations of general deterrence and principles of retribution are, in most cases, of less significance than they would be when sentencing an adult for the same offence. In recognition of the capacity for young people to reform and mould their character to conform to society's norms, considerable emphasis is placed on the need to provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. […]
The law recognises the potential for the cognitive, emotional and/or psychological immaturity of a young person to contribute to their breach of the law. Accordingly, allowance will be made for an offender's youth and not just their biological age. […] The weight to be given to the fact of the offender's youth does not vary depending upon the seriousness of the offence […] Where the immaturity of the offender is a significant factor in the commission of the offence, the criminality involved will be less than if the same offence was committed by an adult." (Citation of authorities omitted)
Echoing part of the rationale behind those principles, Ms Cullen referred to the undeveloped brain of a young man of 18 and the less than optimal cognitive functioning that results. I am satisfied that the offender's immaturity did have a significant role to play in his decision to kill Ned Gronow. The argument with [family member] which prefaced the taking of this fateful and utterly wrong decision was childish in its terms, akin to a spat between two children. That it led to an extraordinary act of violence does not diminish the force of that conclusion.
The decision made by the offender was attributable in part to youth and immaturity, but also to a likely impairment in his decision-making capacity, an impairment with its origins in trauma and the PTSD from which he very likely suffers. That a young man who had known mainly violence and brutality in his life might respond to a perceived wrong with violence and brutality is hardly to be wondered at. The offender did not have the emotional and cognitive resources to deal with his anger and outrage at his [family member]'s complaint in the reasonable and considered way that an individual who had enjoyed a supportive and positive upbringing might. On balance, I accept that the offender's moral blameworthiness is reduced because of his deprived and dysfunctional background, his PTSD, and his young age: Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273 at [31]; Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37.
That conclusion inevitably leads to a diminution in the role for general deterrence in the determination of sentence.
Whilst general deterrence would have a very significant role to play in an offence of vigilantism I do not accept that is the unqualified situation in this instance. The offender reacted to what he understood to have been an affront to his [family member]. His conduct is to be condemned strongly and without reservation, but in the Court's conclusion, that conduct was born of a desire to retaliate, and to act and be seen to have acted for his [family member]'s protection. Conduct by a very young man with motivation such as the offender's is to be distinguished from a conscious decision to punish a person said to have done some wrong. The offender's crime says more about his youth, immaturity, and cognitive limitations than it does about vigilantism or a desire or intention to usurp the role of the courts.
On that same basis I do not regard provocation, as discussed in Tepiana v R [2018] NSWCCA 247, as having any real role to play in determining the sentence to be imposed upon the offender. It does not mitigate the offender's crime by what it might say about his motivation.
In his evidence and in the contents of Exs 2 and 3, the offender expressed his remorse and shame for what he has done. I am satisfied that the offender is remorseful for his crime. Unlike so many offenders, who tell a psychiatrist or family member they are remorseful but are unwilling to ascend to the witness box in a crowded courtroom to give evidence of how they feel about the commission of their crime, the offender gave evidence on his oath. Although they had left the courtroom, Mr Aylward wished to apologise to Mr and Mrs Gronow, and did so. In my assessment, his sentiments were genuine and heartfelt. I accept that the offender, understanding the damage he has done, deeply regrets what he did and is haunted by his crime; he is likely to bear the cross of that crime throughout his future years.
There is reason to conclude that this crime was out of character, and that the offender will not return to criminality in the future. Despite a childhood surrounded by persons casually engaging in crime, the applicant has no criminal record. He has used illicit drugs on his own admission, and his otherwise good character is thus not without qualification, but for a young man with such an upbringing to have no convictions in his past is unusual, and unusually positive. It bespeaks a capacity to live a law abiding life, as does the employment he obtained when at school and after completing his Higher School Certificate, and his efforts to secure an apprenticeship.
As a man now of 21 years of age, the offender has expressed an awareness and understanding of the wrongfulness of his conduct, and his deep remorse for what he has done points to a likely determination never to offend again. His attempts in custody to gain access to vocational and educational courses also points to a determination to do better. These are all favourable features.
The offender's self-induced intoxication is not a mitigating feature. The only relevance I have ascribed to it is that it likely disinhibited the offender, and made the unthinkable something he was prepared to contemplate and carry out.
[6]
Other Considerations
The offender submitted that a finding of special circumstances should be made to lower the NPP that would otherwise be imposed. The basis for the finding was argued to be the offender's young age, that he has no previous experience of a custodial environment, the need to ameliorate the risk of institutionalisation, and to promote his rehabilitated re-entry into society. The Crown did not oppose such a finding.
The offender's youth and his prior, generally good, character have already been given significant weight in the determination of sentence and do not, in my opinion, warrant a finding of special circumstances. The need to avoid institutionalisation is, however, a feature that requires attention, and is an appropriate basis for some variation to the statutory ratio of sentence. Necessarily, the offender's transition from custody to the community will be facilitated by that variation.
The Court was referred to the Public Defender's Tables relevant to murders committed by offenders aged 18 to 20 years, and specifically to the decisions of R v Towney (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 97; R v Perkins [2016] NSWSC 1080; R v Miller (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1347; and R v Robertson; R v Hopkinson [2021] NSWSC 861 to assist in determining the range of sentence and that which applies in comparable cases.
Having considered the information, I have not found any of the cases referred to truly comparable although they are, in a general sense, of some assistance.
Others were drawn into the offender's crime, with criminal proceedings initiated against the offender's father, as an accessory after the fact, and his friend, for concealing a serious offence. Neither has been sentenced. In any event, the offences and circumstances of those other cases are likely sufficiently removed from the offender's crime that parity considerations are not relevant.
[7]
Conclusion
It remains to determine the sentence to be imposed upon the offender. It has not been a straightforward or an easy task. The extreme gravity of the offender's crime and the widespread damage it has occasioned points to the need for him to pay a heavy price. His young age, his appalling background, his former generally good character, his remorse, and his obvious ability to be and do better, point to amelioration of the penalty.
[8]
orders:
Having considered all relevant features, and again stressing that the sentence the Court is about to impose is not and could never be a measure of the value of the life of Julie and Tom Gronow's "beautiful boy" Ned, the sentence passed upon the offender will be as follows.
1. For the offence of the murder of Ned Gronow on 25 June 2022, applying a discount on sentence of 25% as required by law, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 years, with a non-parole period of 12 years. The sentence will commence on 26 June 2022. The non-parole period will expire on 25 June 2034 whilst the total term will expire on 25 June 2040.
2. The offender is warned that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2007 (NSW) may apply to him.
3. A copy of the report of Alison Cullen of 14 June 2024 is to travel with the warrant of commitment for provision to NSW Corrective Services and Justice Health.
[9]
Endnote
Actually "insolubly" in the report, but presumably inconsolably.
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 01 August 2024