On Friday 2 August 2019, Shane Nancarrow unlawfully killed Paul Donald with a knife at premises they shared with two other men at Dondingalong near Kempsey in northern New South Wales. Mr Donald's death has caused immeasurable grief to his parents, siblings and loved ones. Mr Nancarrow was charged with murder and put to trial at Port Macquarie between the 2nd and 15th of March 2022. The trial was very short, and the issues refined and narrow. The length of the trial was exaggerated by various delays caused by participants contracting COVID-19. By the time the jury retired to consider its verdict, there were 10 jurors remaining, 2 of the original 12 having been discharged because they tested positive for, or had symptoms of, the virus. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Sentence proceedings were held in Sydney on Friday 1st of April 2022 and Mr Nancarrow now stands to be sentenced. I should add he is absent from the court for reasons which have been discussed in argument and at the urging of both parties and largely in deference to the attendance of Mr Donald's family in court, I have taken the unusual step of proceeding with this judgment and to impose sentence in his absence. The details of that will be reflected in the transcript.
The bare facts and circumstances surrounding the homicide are not in dispute but there is controversy concerning some important factual details.
The jury's verdict resolved some, but not all, of the factual and evidentiary disputes. There were two possible avenues to the verdict. One was that the offender had an intention to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm (the specific intention required to prove murder), but was guilty of the less serious alternative charge because he acted in excessive self-defence. The other avenue was that the jury was not satisfied that the offender formed the specific intent but was satisfied that the offender's act was unlawful and dangerous. It is necessary to make findings of fact which are not inconsistent with the jury's verdict. Where the finding is an aggravating factor it must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Where it is a mitigating feature, the offender bears the onus on the balance of probabilities. Sometimes a sentencing Judge is not able to make conclusive factual findings because the evidence is either silent or unsatisfactory.
Before I return to grapple with the facts of the case and the evidence presented on Mr Nancarrow's part, I will speak directly to the family of Mr Donald, who are present in court. Some members of the family were present for most of the trial and maintained a dignified vigil over the proceedings. Their grief, and at times their anger and exasperation, was obvious. As I said at the sentencing hearing, the Court is grateful that you have shared your grief in your victim impact statements, and you have my deepest sympathy.
Mr Donald's mother (Barbara) spoke of her life changing when she received the 'phone call telling her that Paul had been killed. She described the horror of going to his home afterwards and cleaning up what must have been Paul last meal. She misses, and will always miss, their regular telephone calls when Paul would speak about the rescue dogs he loved and cared for. She said, understandably given the shock and grief she endures, that she has no forgiveness in her heart for the offender.
Mr Donald's sister (Lisa) says it was "such a senseless death" and described the awful experience of having to ring her mother to tell her the devastating news. She said a mother is not meant to bear such unnatural grief.
Paul's brother (Darren) has not been able to sleep properly since Paul was killed. The brothers lived together on a property for 20 years and sees Paul everywhere in his mind's eye. He says he is so sad, that life seems empty, and he really doesn't know what to do. The brothers shared many good times together and Darren's life will never be the same.
Paul's other brother (Wayne) spoke of the heartbreak when his children, to whom Paul was an uncle, ask him why he had to die. He cannot describe in words the impact Paul's death has had on his mother. He said Paul was a top bloke; kind, hardworking and caring. He didn't deserve to die like he did.
Again, I thank you all for sharing these very personal thoughts. I know it can't be easy and I cannot pretend to comprehend your grief. As I said to you two weeks ago, nothing I say today can help and no sentence I impose on Shane Nancarrow will bring Paul back or seem like it is nearly enough punishment for the man who took Paul's life.
Returning to the facts of the unlawful killing, I will commence with the background and the things that are not in dispute.
As at 2 August 2019, there were four men, including the offender and the deceased, living on a relatively isolated property on Pipers Creek Road at Dondingalong. The other men were Karl McClory and Stewart McMillan. Mr McClory lived on the ground floor of the main house and Mr Nancarrow lived in the "spare room" upstairs. Apart from the offender's bedroom, there was nothing else upstairs and access to his room was by a single staircase leading up from the living area. Mr McMillan lived in a cabin near the house and Mr Donald slept in a caravan also very close by. Mr McClory and Mr McMillan gave evidence at the trial. My sense was that both were doing their absolute best to tell the truth, but neither was a wholly convincing witness. The four men had been drinking that day and I suspect this was not an unusual pastime for any of them, but in particular for the two men called as eye-witnesses by the prosecution. Mr Nancarrow gave evidence that both men drank at least a carton of beer a day. I am satisfied that that alcohol consumption, both short and longer term, impacted on the reliability of the evidence that Mr McClory and Mr McMillan provided. However, I generally accepted what they had to say, and the offender did not contradict them on many matters of great significance.
At one stage during the middle of the day, Mr Nancarrow went to a bottle shop in Kempsey and purchased some beer. By that time, Mr McClory and Mr McMillan had started drinking. In the early afternoon, at about 1pm, the offender had his first drink. There was no animosity between the men at that stage and Mr McMillan said that the offender and Mr Donald were "getting along like a house on fire." [1] At some stage Mr Nancarrow went with Mr Donald to his property nearby to get some equipment for a welding job and to let Mr Donald's dog off its chain. I accept Mr Nancarrow's evidence that during that trip Mr Donald asked Mr Nancarrow whether he could "score" some "ice" (that is, methylamphetamine). His account is supported by the evidence of the other two men as to the events that unfolded later in the day. I am satisfied that Mr Nancarrow's refusal to go into town to buy drugs created the friction that ended tragically many hours later.
The four men were drinking outside sitting around a table until about dusk when it started to get cold. Mr McClory and Mr McMillan went inside and Mr Donald and the offender walked to the caravan.
Mr Donald again raised the question of the offender obtaining some ice. The offender refused saying "No we've already talked about this Paul. No, I don't, I'm not going to do it." [2] According to the offender, Mr Donald then said "Fuck, Shane" and punched him to the left side of his face. [3] There was no other witness to this incident, but I accept the offender's evidence (on this issue) for three main reasons. First, there was a photograph of him in the hospital taken later which showed a bruise to his face consistent with this punch. Second, his account is consistent with the evidence of the other two men as to the argument that developed later. Third, Mr Nancarrow did not exaggerate the incident in any way. He said Mr Donald apologised quickly and calmed down. He did not attempt to attribute any further violence to Mr Donald in the lead up to fatal incident, even when the Prosecutor suggested in cross-examination that Mr Donald had punched him in the nose on the staircase in the moments immediately before he sustained a fatal stab wound.
The four men then continued to drink together, inside the house, for several hours. Based on photographs the police took the next day, and the testimony of the three surviving members of the group, a fair amount of alcohol was consumed. There were various versions of the argument that developed between the offender and Mr Donald but I am satisfied that it had its genesis in Mr Donald's desire to obtain drugs and Mr Nancarrow's refusal to do so. At the time Mr Nancarrow was a recovering drug addict and he was on a methadone programme. He gave evidence of his history of drug use and abuse and was not challenged on this part of his evidence. He admitted he had used ice with Mr Donald on other occasions but was resolved not to do so on 2 August. One way or another, an argument developed between them. Mr McClory and Mr McMillan both gave evidence that supported the proposition that the argument concerned the benefits or otherwise of methylamphetamine and methadone. I am satisfied that the deceased remained keen to obtain ice and was cranky with Mr Nancarrow. The other men described tensions rising through the evening. By around 11pm the two men had become very heated in their interactions, and each retreated to their respective private spaces; Mr Donald to the caravan and Mr Nancarrow to his bedroom upstairs. It is tragedy that Mr Donald returned to the house.
Mr McMillan and Mr McClory described the behaviour of both men. It is unnecessary to go into great detail but I accept that both were behaving aggressively. In particular, I accept that Mr Donald's behaviour was strange and very aggressive and when he came back inside. Mr McClory said he was acting like a "zombie", appeared to be "transfixed on something" and was in a "trance state". [4] Mr McMillan gave a similar account. He said Mr Donald "looked like he wanted to hurt someone", [5] was behaving like a "ravenous dog" looked similar to meth addicts he had seen in town. [6] I should interpolate here that the toxicology results established that Mr Donald had not taken methylamphetamine for a period of at least 6 hours before his death. [7] Mr McMillan provided the jury with some graphic impressions of Mr Donald's behaviour and facial expressions - he did so by clenching his teeth and jutting his jaw forward.
Meanwhile, Mr McClory said he could hear movements upstairs. In a moment of courage and prescience, he ascended the staircase and took up a defensive position towards the top of the staircase - perhaps ¾ of the way up - to stop the men coming together. By that stage, Mr Nancarrow was sitting or crouching at or near the top the stairs. He was armed with a knife although Mr McClory did not know that. Mr Donald was about to run up the staircase to confront him.
I reject (beyond reasonable doubt) Mr Nancarrow's account of what he did when he went upstairs. In particular, I reject (beyond reasonable doubt) his version of how he came to be armed with a knife when the two men finally came into physical contact on the staircase moments later. The offender claimed that he went upstairs, sat on his lounge in the dark while paring his fingernails with a knife that had a blade around 8cm long. He said the lights were off and the only illumination was a headlamp he was wearing. He said when he heard Mr Donald come back into the house and mention his name he went directly to the top of the staircase from the lounge. He denied returning to the small "kitchenette" in his room to fetch the knife or lying on his bed which was proximate to the kitchenette. He said it "just didn't really register that I still had [the knife]" [8] when he took up his position at the top of the stairs.
I did not accept this evidence when the offender gave it at the trial. It sounded like a justification for being armed with the weapon that killed Mr Donald. However, I am conscious of the limitations on Judges' ability to make positive findings of fact based on demeanour or impression.
More important than my instinctive reaction to the evidence was the fact that the evidence was inconsistent with Mr McClory's evidence of hearing noises like somebody was moving around upstairs. Further, Mr Nancarrow was confronted in cross-examination with the fact that the headlamp was not located on the lounge or adjacent coffee table where he said he was sitting. He was not able to explain this. He said he did not know what happened to the headlamp. He then volunteered that it there is a "possibility it's in the doona on the bed". [9] He was then confronted with photographs showing a headlamp placed on the bed with TV remote controls and PlayStation controllers. He said "it would've got there somehow". He then asserted positively "it was rolled up with the doona" and maintained his evidence that "I never went over that side of the room". [10] The objective evidence at the trial undermined his account to a significant degree.
Mr Nancarrow gave evidence on sentence. He was not cross-examined by the Prosecutor but I asked him about this aspect of the evidence he gave at the trial:
"HIS HONOUR: Feel free to object, Mr Neild.
Q. Mr Nancarrow, you gave some evidence at the trial about the circumstances in which you were sitting at the top of the stairs with a knife?
A. Yes.
Q. You gave some evidence that you were sitting on the lounge paring your nails with a knife with a 7 centimetre blade in the dark illuminated only by your head lamp?
A. Yes.
Q. Was that evidence true?
A. Absolutely.
Q. So, how did the head lamp come to be on the bed?
A. I think it was a different head lamp. I had two different ones. The one I was using had a red light that didn't illuminate the room.
Q. So what happened to the other head lamp, the one that you say you were wearing in the dark paring your nails with a 7 centimetre blade?
A. Yep, I think it was under the table.
Q. Under the coffee table?
A. Under the coffee table, yeah. We just couldn't see it from the photos.
Q. Are you sure this evidence is correct? Could you be mistaken about it?
A. No.
Q. And you maintain the version of events that you simply happened to have a knife in your hand when you walked over to sit at the top of the stairs and you'd forgotten you had the knife. Is that what you say?
A. Yes." [11]
This was the first occasion that Mr Nancarrow suggested that there was a second headlamp despite being confronted with the photograph of the item on the bed at the trial.
The location of the headlamp is not significant in itself. However, it is relevant to Mr Nancarrow's version of what he did upstairs and how he came to be armed with a knife at the time of the confrontation with Mr Donald. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Nancarrow's version is untrue and that he deliberately armed himself with the knife before taking up his position on the staircase. I reject, as fanciful, his evidence that it "didn't register" that he still had the knife at that time.
However, my rejection of this part of the offender's evidence does not result in the rejection of all of his evidence or all of the arguments made on his behalf. I do accept that he was apprehensive or afraid and that he believed what he did was necessary to defend himself from Mr Donald. I am satisfied that he armed himself for that reason and that he did not intend, at that time, to use the knife to stab Mr Donald.
Returning to the narrative, I am satisfied that Mr Nancarrow sat at the top of the stairs armed with the knife, that Mr Donald charged up the stairs towards him. What was in Mr Donald's mind at the time, and what his intentions were, cannot be known. However, I accept Mr McClory's evidence, supported by both Mr McMillan and the offender's version, that Mr Donald was trying to get past Mr McClory to get at Mr Nancarrow. Mr McClory said that Mr Donald charged into his back on three or four occasions by which time Mr Nancarrow had stood up facing him. Mr McMillan said Karl (McClory) was sandwiched in the middle when Paul ran up.
It seems neither of the independent witnesses was aware that Mr Nancarrow was armed with a knife. Mr McMillan, watching from the foot of the stairs, said he saw Mr Nancarrow "punching him or tying to punch him". [12] Mr McClory described it somewhat differently, telling the police in the walk-thorough interview that became the bulk of his evidence in chief:
"Paul [Donald], uh, approached me … three to four times and bounced off my back. And I was trying to talk to Shane [Nancarrow] at the same time and get him to settle down and go to sleep because he, he had a clenched fist. I, I never saw any weapon. It was too dark up here. It happened so fast. Um, then after about the third or fourth time he bounced off my back, Shane, while he, while he was pushing on my back to the left, Shane lunged forward and I thought he'd gone to punch him or grab him …" [13]
Later he was asked how many times the offender lunged at the deceased and he said:
"Once. Only once. One, one lunge. And I thought he was trying to grab him or punch him. I never saw a weapon. But I do remember seeing his fist clenched … It was a, a thrust. A lunge and a thrust of his arm. And I just thought he'd gone to punch him or grab him." [14]
Mr Donald said almost immediately that he had been stabbed. [15] The post-mortem examination established that Mr Donald sustained two "sharp force injuries" [16] or stab wounds. One was to his left shoulder or upper arm. The second wound was fatal. It entered around Mr Donald's upper abdomen or lower chest. This wound had an upwards trajectory and penetrated the pericardial sac, entering the right ventricle of the heart. The pathologists could not provide any conclusive opinion concerning the degree of force required to inflict this wound.
Based on all the evidence, I do not accept Mr Nancarrow's version that he merely held the knife out in front of him and that both the fatal wound and the shoulder wound were caused by Mr Donald running into the knife as he charged up the stairs or as he tried to get past Mr McClory. While the pathologists were prepared to accept that this was possible, the evidence of Mr McClory and Mr McMillan satisfy me that the offender did more than just hold the knife up, pointing it in Mr Donald's direction. I am satisfied he made some offensive motion, in the form of a stabbing motion - a "thrust" or a "lunge" - directed towards Mr Donald. It may be that one of the wounds was caused by Mr Donald running into the knife, but I reject the suggestion (beyond reasonable doubt) that both wounds were caused in that way.
Even so, I am unable to find beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Nancarrow intended to inflict grievous bodily harm on Mr Donald, let alone that he intended to kill him. As the Prosecutor very fairly and properly conceded during the sentencing hearing it was "not a powerful case that suggests specific intent". [17]
Before returning to summarise my findings, and to conclude the narrative of the events, Mr Nancarrow decamped the scene quickly. He drove away, threw the knife into bushland, drove some kilometres down the road before heading back towards the scene of the crime. He rolled his car on the way back and was spoken to by witnesses and police while awaiting medical treatment. He was in hospital for some time and various conversations with his parents and a girlfriend were recorded by listening device. The quality of the recordings is poor. Mr Nancarrow's flight from the scene fortifies me in the adverse findings I have made. His conduct after the stabbing is far from determinative, and I am sure that part of his action in fleeing was simple panic, but his behaviour supports inferentially my findings that he armed himself deliberately (albeit to defend himself) and that the stab wound or wounds were caused by his purposeful act in thrusting the knife in Mr Donald's direction.
I acknowledge the careful submissions made by Mr Neild, the public defender who appeared for Mr Nancarrow at the trial and on sentence, in relation to a number of findings that it was submitted that I should make. I have not dealt with each of those submission in terms but they have framed the above analysis to a significant degree.
All offences of homicide are serious and the process of deciding the appropriate sentence and evaluating the objective seriousness of the offence must begin and end with an acknowledgement that a precious life has been taken away. The following matters are relevant to an assessment of the objective seriousness of this particular offence:
1. Mr Nancarrow did not intend to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Some cases of manslaughter do involve such an intention. This offender is to be sentenced on the basis that he committed an unlawful and dangerous act.
2. The offence was not planned or premeditated, although he did (contrary to his evidence) make a conscious choice to bring the weapon to the top of the stairs. The offence was certainly not part of a planned and organised criminal activity.
3. The offence involved the use of a weapon and the actual use of violence (aggravating features not present in all, or even most, cases of manslaughter). Mr Nancarrow deliberately armed himself in preparation for the confrontation.
4. Mr Donald was the initial aggressor and became angry because the offender would not accede to his desire to acquire drugs. It was also Mr Donald who ran up the stairs precipitating the final, tragic, event. However, that event would not have ended in tragedy if Mr Nancarrow had not made the choice to arm himself with a dangerous weapon.
5. Mr Nancarrow believed his conduct was necessary to defend himself. In reaching that conclusion, I have taken into account the earlier incidents and arguments and the uncontested evidence that Mr Nancarrow had an anxiety disorder.
6. The jury clearly rejected, as do I, that his conduct was reasonable in the circumstances as he perceived them to be. To be clear: the offender did not need to arm himself with a knife and certainly did not need to thrust it at Mr Donald as he attempted to get past Mr McClory.
Manslaughter can be committed in a myriad of circumstances, and it is difficult to articulate where any case falls, objectively, on the putative scale of seriousness that sentencing Judges in this state are almost compelled to identify. I evaluate this case as falling towards the lower end of all cases of manslaughter. However, it is not at the bottom of the very wide range of conduct that may result in a conviction for this "protean" crime. The use of the weapon and the objectively unreasonable resort to violence takes it well outside the very bottom of the range.
An aggravating feature of the case is that the offence was committed when Mr Nancarrow was subject to a conditional release order made by the Kempsey Local Court on 22 July 2019.
I turn now to the subjective and mitigating features that must also play a role in the instinctive synthesis of what will constitute an appropriate sentence.
Mr Nancarrow offered to plead guilty to manslaughter at an early stage. His offer was vindicated by the jury's verdict. The parties agree that he is entitled to a 25% reduction in an otherwise appropriate sentence.
Mr Nancarrow gave evidence and wrote a letter to the Court expressing his remorse. Those parts of his evidence I have rejected undermine a finding that he has fully accepted responsibility for causing Mr Donald's death and other parts suggest he feels sorry for himself. However, I accept that he is generally and genuinely remorseful. Mr Donald was after all his mate. Some of the things he said in hospital suggests that he is very sorry for the death of Mr Donald and his letter to the court demonstrates some insight into the enormity of what he has done and the pain he has caused to Mr Donald's family.
The offender has a criminal history in both Queensland and New South Wales. His offences reflect the long-standing struggle with drug addiction of which he gave evidence at the trial. His offences are mostly dishonesty offences, drug offences and driving offences. Some are serious and he has previously been sent to gaol. However, there are no prior serious offences of violence, although there is some history of breaching apprehended violence orders. Considering the terms of ss 21A(2)(d) and 21A(3)(e) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), I think his criminal record is essentially a neutral factor. It disentitles him to the leniency that would be afforded to a first offender but does not disentitle him to leniency altogether. I also accept that the offence was generally out of character and arose from the very unusual situation that developed that day. I am not satisfied that he should be sentenced on the basis that he represents a danger to the community. I do not find that he is generally a violent man.
The evidence tendered on sentence suggests that he has made strong, if recent, attempts at rehabilitation from his drug problem. He has done well in gaol in difficult circumstances and I am satisfied that he has good prospects of rehabilitation. I think he is unlikely to re-offend in a similar way. His rehabilitation will turn largely on his ability to abstain from drug use and resisting the temptation of re-entering the criminal milieu that is sometimes associated with people who choose to use illegal drugs.
I accept the evidence of his anxiety disorder and the devastating impact the death of his son had on him. I also accept this led to the breakdown of his long-term relationship and the impact the separation had on him. I accept the letter written by his mother that he has returned to his former self since he has been in custody.
I accept that he has found his time in custody to be difficult because of his anxiety and depression and that this is likely to continue. I take this into account in setting the total sentence but also in making a finding of special circumstances. Similarly, I accept that the COVID-19 pandemic has made his time in custody difficult and he has had very few (if any) contact visits with his family. Again, I have taken this into account, particularly in structuring the sentence.
I have considered the sentencing outcomes in various cases helpfully drawn to my attention by Mr Neild. In doing so, I recognise that such outcomes can only be of limited assistance but the sentence upon which I have settled is confirmed by my consideration of those cases.
I also take into account the delay in the matter coming on for trial. Mr Nancarrow has been in custody since 2 August 2019. He made a formal offer to plead guilty to manslaughter on 16 July 2020. His trial was scheduled to be heard in 2021 but the COVID-19 pandemic meant that all jury trials in this Court were vacated for that period. He has been left in a state of uncertainty, with a murder charge hanging over him, for a period of almost three years.
Pursuant to s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, I find special circumstances and I find that these circumstances warrant a substantial adjustment in the proportion of the non-parole period to the total sentence. The circumstances include the difficulties he has had in custody and his need for an extended period of supervision to ensure he remains drug free and is able to transition back into the general community. The adjustment I have made is substantial and this is a conscious choice based on this offender's particular circumstances.
Whether Mr Nancarrow is released at the conclusion of the non-parole period will be a matter for the parole authority and dictated largely by his conduct in custody in the meantime. If he continues to behave well in custody I recommend that he be released upon, or as soon as possible after, the expiration of the non-parole period.
I must give effect to these findings and give effect to the competing objectives and purposes of punishment. I have kept firmly in mind the maximum penalty of 25 years and that this offence involved the unlawful killing of a much-loved human being. I must recognise the harm done to the secondary victims of this senseless killing and those who grieve for Paul Donald every day. General deterrence must play a significant role because of the use of the weapon and the devastating consequences. Personal deterrence also has a role to play - the offender must be deterred from conducting himself in this way again. The offender must be made accountable for his conduct and his conduct must be denounced. He must be adequately punished and the punishment must be proportionate to the crime and its dreadful result.
Before imposing sentence and exposing the process by which I reach that sentence, I would like again to acknowledge the diligence of the solicitors and barristers who appeared at the trial and on sentence. Their assistance throughout the process has been invaluable and their fairness and integrity brings credit to their profession.
Synthesising those findings, evaluations and principles, I would commence with a sentence of 10 years. I reduce that starting point by 25% which will result in a sentence of 7½ years. To give effect to my finding of special circumstances and make a substantial adjustment to the proportion of the sentence to be served in custody, I will set a non-parole period of 4 years. The sentence will commence on the day Mr Nancarrow was taken into custody. So I will now formally impose the sentence.
[2]
Sentence
For the manslaughter of Paul Donald, Shane Nancarrow is convicted.
1. He is sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 2 August 2019 and expiring on 1 August 2023.
2. There will be a balance of term of 3½ years commencing on 2 August 2023 and concluding 1 February 2027.
3. He will be eligible for release to parole at the expiration of the non-parole period. Subject to his conduct in custody, I recommend that he be released at that time or as soon as possible thereafter.
4. Pursuant to s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), I must advise Mr Nancarrow of the existence of that Act and the fact that it applies to him and to this offence. I will direct that his lawyers explain the relevance of that Act to him and the impact it may have on his life following his release from custody.
[3]
Endnotes
See tcpt, 3 March 2022, p 96(43-47).
Tcpt, 8 March 2022, p 228(4-5).
Tcpt, 8 March 2022, p 228(8-9).
See Ex B, pp 7, 24, a DVD copy of a Police walk-through conducted with Mr McClory on 25 September 2019, which comprised the bulk of his evidence in chief.
Tcpt, 3 March 2022, p 101(31).
See tcpt, 3 March 2022, p 106(28-36).
See Ex M, agreed facts in relation to toxicology results from Paul Donald, 7 March 2022. See also tcpt, 7 March 2022, p 149(8-17).
Tcpt, 8 March 2022, p 238(31).
Tcpt, 9 March 2022, p 297(36).
Tcpt, 9 March 2022, p 302(35-36).
Tcpt on sentence, 1 April 2022, pp 7(40)-8(21).
Tcpt, 3 March 2022, p 91(15-16).
See Ex B, p 8.
See Ex B, p 21.
Tcpt, 3 March 2022, p 92(2). See also Ex B, pp 8, 11.
Tcpt, 7 March 2022, p 144(1).
Tcpt on sentence, 1 April 2022, p 14(24).
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: 14 April 2022