R v Sloan

Agreed Facts

1. Lengthy Agreed Facts were tendered on 19 July 2024. I have extracted them verbatim, and they are as follows.

Events leading up to the murder

1. On 1 May 2020, Ms Carroll withdrew $10,000 from her superannuation fund under the COVID-19 early release of super scheme. On 1 June 2020, she rented a white 2018 Hyundai i30 (NSW registration CR51LE) from "No Birds Car Rental" at Artarmon. The vehicle was due to be returned on 8 June 2020.
2. On 8 June 2020, Ms Carroll was at 10 Richard Road, Colyton, when Hamad Al-Shamare (known as "Ali") threatened her and demanded the keys to her rental vehicle. Ali took the vehicle and left the premises. The vehicle was never returned to Ms Carroll. She renewed the lease by telephone on 8, 16, 23 and 30 June 2020.
3. On 17 June 2020, the co-offender, Benjamin Parkes checked in to the Hunts Hotel at Casula. He was allocated room number 261. Mr Parkes stayed in that room until 20 July 2020. At the time, Mr Parkes was in the business of supplying prohibited drugs, namely, crystal methylamphetamine ("ice"), cocaine and cannabis. His upline supplier was Witness H, who resided at 54A Rosford Street, Smithfield.
4. On 26 June 2020, Ms Carroll purchased a blue 2000 Mercedes SUV (NSW registration CV98SR) for $3,700. She did not then transfer the registration into her name. Later that night (at 11:25pm), Ms Carroll checked in to the Hunts Hotel. She was allocated room number 313.
5. Ms Carroll met Mr Parkes for the first time shortly after checking in to the hotel.
6. On 29 June 2020, Mr Parkes drove Ms Carroll to the St George Bank at Carnes Hill where she withdrew $8,500 in cash. Ms Carroll gave Mr Parkes $8,000 as an investment in his drug supply business. Mr Parkes told Ms Carroll he would give her a percentage of the profits from his drug supply business. Mr Parkes, however, only gave her some of the profits from a few sales. He told Witness H about this.
7. On 30 June 2020, Robert Sloan (aka "Pockets") checked in to the Hunts Hotel. He was allocated room number 263 (two doors down from Mr Parkes in room 261). Almost immediately, Mr Sloan began to supply prohibited drugs for Mr Parkes. Mr Parkes paid for Mr Sloan's room at the hotel.
8. Ms Carroll met Mr Sloan for the first time shortly after he checked in to the hotel. Ms Carroll drove Mr Sloan around, including to sell drugs for Mr Parkes.
9. Witness H saw Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan on a number of occasions. He observed that Mr Sloan looked up to Mr Parkes.
10. Witness H's housemate, Witness K, also saw Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan on a number of occasions. He observed that Mr Parkes made it very clear that he was in charge of his and Mr Sloan's relationship in the way he spoke about Mr Sloan and directing him what to do. Mr Parkes described the offender as his runner.
11. Mr Parkes was the dominant force in the relationship with Mr Sloan. Mr Sloan followed instructions from Mr Parkes. Mr Sloan always went into Mr Parkes' room, never the other way around.
12. On 1 July 2020, Ms Carroll moved from room 313 to room 259, placing her on the same floor and in the same hallway as Mr Parkes (room 261) and Mr Sloan (room 263).
13. Between 2 July 2020 and 11 July 2020, Ms Carroll had regular phone contact (calls and SMS) with both Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan, as well as seeing them in person.
14. On 3 July 2020, Ms Carroll attended Fairfield Police Station and reported the vehicle she rented on 1 June 2020 as stolen. The police told her to call the Police Assistance Line ("PAL"). Ms Carroll called the PAL from a car outside the police station, while Mr Sloan was also in the car. After Ms Carroll told the PAL operator about the stolen car, the operator suggested Ms Carroll to go back into the police station. She informed police that it had been stolen soon after she had rented it, but she had delayed reporting it to police due to fear of being intimidated by the thief. Whilst at the police station, the rental company tracked the vehicle to the Sydney CBD and subsequently attended the location and took possession of the vehicle.
15. Up to 5 July 2020, Ms Carroll used a mobile number subscribed in her name. It seems she lost her mobile. Mr Sloan gave her one of his mobiles, with a number 0460 529 930, subscribed in his name, to use.
16. On 6 July 2020, Mr Sloan texted Mr Parkes saying: "Morning mate how are you. Well is all I can say about last night. Never before have I seen a person go up and down so much you my friend are a better man than me."
17. Between 7 July 2020 and 11 July 2020, Mr Parkes was absent from the Hunts Hotel. On 9 July 2020, Mr Parkes and Witness H left Sydney for Western Australia for the purpose of supplying prohibited drugs. They were driving Ms Carroll's Mercedes. Mr Sloan checked out of his room (263) and stayed in Mr Parkes' room (261) while Mr Parkes was absent.
18. Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll continued to stay at the Hunts Hotel during Mr Parkes' absence. Mr Parkes gave Mr Sloan drugs to sell while he was away. Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll were both involved in the supply of prohibited drugs during this period of time. They spent a lot of time together. Both Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll communicated with Mr Parkes by phone (calls and SMS) during his absence.
19. At 10:45am on 9 July 2020, Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll went to Bunnings Warehouse at the Crossroads together. Ms Carroll bought a two-piece funnel set and Mr Sloan bought degreaser. At about 2:15pm, Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll went to Kmart at Casula Mall together. Ms Carroll bought a cap, men's slippers, and a jumper. At about 8:20pm, Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll went to Westfield Liverpool together. Ms Carroll bought food from a grocery store.
20. On 10 July 2020, shortly before 2:00am, Mr Parkes and Witness H were stopped by South Australian Police at the border (with New South Wales). Police searched the vehicle and located $17,380 in cash but did not locate ice hidden beneath the centre console. Police seized the cash. Police observed a baseball bat in the back seat and a yellow 20L plastic jerry can in the boot of the vehicle during the search. Mr Parkes and Witness H were refused entry to South Australia and returned to Sydney in Ms Carroll's Mercedes. Mr Parkes was very, very angry and upset about losing the money.
21. At about 10:30am, Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll went to Bunnings Warehouse and the Crossroads together. Ms Carroll bought a cashbox, dog chain and superglue.
22. At about 5:00pm, Ms Carroll attended Liverpool Service NSW and transferred the registration of the Mercedes into her name.

Events related directly to the murder

1. At some point, Mr Parkes complained to Witness H about Ms Carroll as she wanted her money back, knew too much about the drug dealing and had gone to the police about a stolen car. Mr Parkes wanted to keep the money. He was not in any way going to give Ms Carroll's money back to her.
2. At some point, Mr Parkes told Witness H that he was going to bash Mr Sloan to teach him a lesson for not respecting Mr Parkes.

Saturday 11 July 2020

1. At around 7:30am, Mr Parkes and Witness H arrived back in Sydney. At around 11:30am, as instructed by Mr Parkes, Mr Sloan caught a taxi from outside the Hunts Hotel to Bringelly (an adjoining suburb to Rossmore) where he met up with Witness H and Mr Parkes.
2. At 11:58am, Ms Carroll using 0460 529 930 called Mr Parkes. This was last the outgoing activity and registration with the Telstra network on this service. Following this there was only incoming activity.
3. At 12:50pm, Ms Carroll paid $120 to the Hunts Hotel to extend her stay.
4. At 4:02pm, Mr Sloan returned to the Hunts Hotel driving Ms Carroll's Mercedes. He exited the vehicle and removed items including a hammer-like tool, a baseball bat, a yellow jerry can, a large water bottle, an esky, a pair of Nike shoes and a duffle bag from the boot and placed them over the balcony of Mr Parkes' room (261). Mr Sloan went into Mr Parkes' room, where he had been staying.
5. At 5:15pm, Mr Parkes returned to the Hunts Hotel driving his Toyota HiLux. He walked over to the balcony of Ms Carroll's room and had a conversation with her. Mr Parkes then jumped over the balcony and entered Ms Carroll's room. Mr Parkes told her she would not be staying the night at the hotel.
6. At 5:25pm, Mr Sloan left Mr Parkes' room, attended reception and checked in for a seven-night stay. He was allocated room 254, in the same hallway as the rooms of Mr Parkes (261) and Ms Carroll (259).
7. Between 6:05pm and 6:50pm, Mr Sloan was in his own room.
8. At 6:06pm, Mr Parkes called Witness H. The duration of the call was 2 minutes and 6 seconds. Mr Parkes was on or near Ms Carroll's balcony at this time.
9. At 6:12pm, Mr Parkes knocked on Ms Carroll's door and spoke to her. He waited in the corridor, playing on his mobile. At 6:15pm, Mr Parkes again knocked on the door of Ms Carroll's room. Ms Carroll opened the door. She hurriedly left her room carrying a khaki bag, a small black bag, and items of clothing. Mr Parkes and Ms Carroll entered Mr Parkes' room.
10. At 6:38pm, Mr Parkes phoned the offender. The duration of the call was 8 minutes and 40 seconds.
11. At about 7:20pm, Mr Sloan left the Hunts Hotel alone.
12. At about 7.30pm, Mr Parkes and Ms Carroll left the Hunts Hotel in Mr Parkes' Toyota HiLux and met with Witness H at Cabramatta. Ms Carroll took the khaki bag and small black bag with her leaving a suitcase and the remainder of her belongings behind in her room. Ms Carroll left the hotel wearing the khaki green trousers and purple shoes that she was wearing when her body was discovered. This is the last time Ms Carroll attended the Hunts Hotel. At about 8:13pm, Mr Sloan returned to the hotel. Ms Carroll's Mercedes was also left behind at the hotel.
13. Mr Parkes and Ms Carroll had dinner with Witness H at a Chinese restaurant in Cabramatta. Afterwards, Mr Parkes drove her to Witness H's residence at 54A Rosford Street, Smithfield. Mr Parkes asked Witness H and Witness K if she could stay in their garage and if they could keep an eye on her. They agreed. Mr Parkes took Ms Carroll's phone from her.
14. Mr Sloan made no calls (or attempted calls) to Ms Carroll after this time.
15. Ms Carroll remained at 54A Rosford Street, Smithfield until Mr Sloan collected her in the Mercedes at 2:29am on 14 July 2020, shortly before she was murdered.
16. At 10:25pm, Mr Sloan sent the following text message to Mr Parkes: "Ben I don't know what today was about but none of it makes sense as you sure as fucked didn't take me out there to hold no package what ever you work out what I owe you still for the money you lent me and I will get it to you Rotton only wanted to buy a bit and sell a bit to earn a few dollars he won't be joining the crew and I have worked my butt off out of loyalty for you for what you did for me but I will not get in to bed with some junkie slut so if you don't want me to sell any more that's fine as I said I will give you the $950 by my calculations next Monday when I get the dole."
17. Mr Parkes remained at Witness H's residence until about 3:30am the next morning when he returned to the Hunts Hotel (arriving at about 4:00am).

Sunday 12 July 2020

1. At 10:37am, Mr Sloan entered the hallway to his room. As he walked past Ms Carroll's room, he looked in the direction of the housekeeping cart which was positioned outside her room. He then walked a few steps before stopping, turning around, and looking in the direction of the door to Ms Carroll's room.
2. At about 10:40am, Mr Sloan texted Mr Parkes saying: "Ben I am about to get booted out of here don't know where to buy I will talk to you later about what I still owe you for the car don't worry I pay my debts Pockets".
3. At approximately 12:20pm, Mr Sloan, using cash given to him by Mr Parkes, paid for his, Mr Parkes', and Ms Carroll's room.
4. At various times on 12 July 2020, the ex-partner of Mr Parkes came and went from the Hunts Hotel. She attended with her three children whom she shares with Mr Parkes.
5. She and the children were in Ms Carroll's room with Mr Parkes for approximately 15 minutes from about 6:05pm to just past 6:20pm when she and the children left with a pink speaker/radio from the room. She left the hotel almost immediately thereafter.
6. While Mr Parkes' ex-partner was in Ms Carroll's room with Mr Parkes, Mr Sloan also entered the room briefly at 6:10pm.
7. After Mr Parkes' ex-partner left, Mr Sloan returned to Ms Carroll's room and joined Mr Parkes once again. This was at 6:26pm.
8. At 6:50pm, Mr Sloan climbed over the balcony to Ms Carroll's room and walked in the direction of Mr Parkes' room. Mr Sloan was carrying a bag in his right hand. Approximately 30 seconds later, Mr Sloan returned to the balcony to Ms Carroll's room, climbed onto it and entered Ms Carroll's room. He was no longer carrying the bag. Mr Sloan was here doing Mr Parkes' dirty work.
9. Both Parkes and the offender left Ms Carroll's room together at 6:51pm. When they left the room, Mr Parkes was carrying a white plastic bag from Ms Carroll's room. Neither he nor his ex-partner carried it into the room when they entered at 6:05pm. Mr Parkes, saying something to the effect, "Yeah, you get rid of that", handed the bag to Mr Sloan who tied the handles and placed it on the ground near the door to his room.
10. Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan left the Hunts Hotel together at about 8:38pm and drove in Mr Parkes' HiLux to Witness H's residence at 54A Rosford Street, Smithfield. They arrived at Smithfield at 9:05pm and left there at 10:56pm.
11. They returned to the Hunts Hotel together in the HiLux at about midnight.
12. Mr Sloan spent many hours of 12 July 2020 in the company of Mr Parkes. At times during this day, Mr Sloan: did Mr Parkes' laundry; drove Mr Parkes' escort's car so as to disguise her presence at the hotel; let his ex-partner and her son into the hallway; and carried the son's bag.

Monday 13 July 2020

1. Mr Parkes left the Hunts Hotel again that morning at 12:44am about 40 minutes after returning. This time, the offender remained at the Hunts Hotel.
2. Mr Parkes drove his HiLux to Witness H's residence at 54A Rosford Street, Smithfield arriving at about 1:30am. He remained there until about 8:15am in the morning.
3. At about 8:55am, Mr Sloan touched the "Do not disturb" sign on the door handle to Ms Carroll's room. At about 9:15am and 9:35am, Mr Sloan paid for his, Mr Parkes' and Ms Carroll's rooms in cash. At about 11:00am, the hotel cleaners cleaned Mr Sloan's room and removed the bag from outside his room.
4. Mr Parkes returned to the Hunts Hotel at 2.32pm that afternoon. At about 4:20pm, Mr Parkes left the Hunts Hotel in his HiLux. At about 5:20pm, he went to Witness H's house.
5. At about 3:00pm, Mr Sloan went out in the Mercedes. At 8.04pm, Mr Sloan returned to the hotel and manoeuvred the Mercedes in the carpark so that the boot was closest to the balcony of Ms Carroll's room (the unit was on the ground floor of the hotel).
6. At 8.24pm, Mr Sloan opened the boot of the Mercedes, entered Ms Carroll's hotel room via the balcony, and placed items into the Mercedes, including her suitcase. At about 8:30pm, Mr Sloan left the hotel in the Mercedes.
7. Shortly after 9:00pm, Mr Parkes and Witness H left Witness H's residence at Smithfield and travelled to Potts Point and attended the Vegas Hotel.
8. At 9:35pm, Mr Sloan phoned Mr Parkes. The duration of the call was 2 minutes and 38 seconds. For this and calls through the rest of the night, Mr Sloan and Mr Parkes used mobile numbers subscribed in their own names.
9. At 10:00pm, Mr Parkes and Witness H arrived at the Vegas Hotel.
10. At 10:56pm, Mr Sloan and another male, Witness A, returned to the Hunts Hotel together in the Mercedes. Mr Sloan had just met Witness A through a mutual friend, who introduced Witness A to him as a good drug runner. They left again at 11:27pm and returned at 12:30am.

Tuesday 14 July 2020

1. At 1:17am, Mr Parkes phoned Mr Sloan. The call was not answered. Mr Parkes phone connected to the cell tower at "Kings Cross". Mr Sloan's phone connected to the cell tower at "Liverpool South".
2. At 1:18am, Mr Parkes again phoned Mr Sloan. The call was not answered. Mr Parkes' phone connected to the cell tower at "Kings Cross".
3. At 1:33am, Mr Sloan called Mr Parkes twice but both calls were not answered. Mr Sloan's phone connected to the cell tower at "Crossroads".
4. At 1:42am, Mr Parkes called the offender. The duration of this call was 2 minutes and 54 seconds. Mr Parkes' phone connected to the cell tower at "Kings Cross Macleay Street". Mr Parkes can be seen on CCTV walking out of the Vegas Hotel at Potts Point talking on his phone. Mr Sloan was in his room at the Hunts Hotel at the time. Witness A was also present. At the conclusion of the call, Mr Sloan told Witness A he had to go. Witness A offered to accompany him. Mr Sloan declined the offer.
5. At 1:48am, Mr Parkes called Witness K. Witness K was a friend of Witness H's and was residing with him at 54A Rosford Street, Smithfield. The duration of the call was 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Mr Parkes' phone connected to the cell tower at "Potts Point Macleay Street". At about 1:55am, Witness K moved a car from the driveway of 54A Rosford St, Smithfield.
6. At 1:53am, Mr Parkes called Witness H. The duration of the call was 9 seconds. Mr Parkes' phone connected to the cell tower at "Potts Point Macleay Street". Witness H's phone connected to the cell tower at "Potts Point".
7. At 2:00am, Mr Sloan left the Hunts Hotel driving Ms Carroll's Mercedes. Mr Sloan was on his own. At 2:07am, he went to 7-Eleven Casula. He bought two lighters, a bottle of Coke, two large Kit Kats and two large packets of chips.
8. At 2:29am, Mr Sloan arrived at Witness H's residence in Ms Carroll's Mercedes. He reversed the vehicle into the driveway. Mr Sloan called Witness K and asked him to open the garage door. Witness K used the remote to open the garage door. Ms Carroll got into her car. Mr Sloan drove her car towards Sandy Point.
9. At 2:47am, the Mercedes was captured on Memorial Avenue, Liverpool (at the intersection of Bathurst Street) heading in a generally easterly direction.
10. At about 2:59am, Mr Sloan and Ms Carroll arrived at the entrance to secluded bushland which could be accessed from Heathcote Road, Sandy Point. The bushland in that area is vast. It was an area well-known to Mr Parkes.
11. At 2:59am, Mr Sloan called Mr Parkes twice. Both calls were not answered. On each occasion, Mr Sloan's phone connected to the cell tower at "Sandy Point" and Mr Parkes' phone connected to the cell tower at "Potts Point Macleay Street".
12. At 3:10am, Mr Parkes left Potts Point driving his HiLux.
13. At times between 3:11am and 3:36am, Ms Carroll's Mercedes was captured on cameras affixed to a Fairfield City Council garbage truck parked on the side of Heathcote Road, Sandy Point, near the entrance to bushland.
14. At 3:16am, Mr Sloan called Mr Parkes. The duration of the call was 43 seconds. Mr Sloan's phone connected to the cell tower at "Sandy Point". Mr Parkes' phone connected to the cell towers at "Botany Booralee Street" and "Mascot M5 Motorway Emergency Stairs".
15. At about 3.32am, Mr Parkes stopped at a service station at Moorebank where he purchased 12 litres of high-octane 98 petrol. The HiLux he was driving was diesel-powered.
16. Mr Parkes then exited the service station onto Heathcote Road and drove across the M5 overpass in the direction of Sandy Point.
17. Mr Parkes then drove to Sandy Point where Mr Sloan was waiting for him with Ms Carroll in her Mercedes.
18. When Mr Parkes arrived, at about 3:40am, both cars drove into the bushland which was accessed via a track from Heathcote Road.
19. Once in the secluded bushland, Ms Carroll was killed and her car was set on fire and destroyed. Her body was set alight in a crevice behind a large rock. Testing of the soil where her body was found revealed that there was petrol in the soil.
20. The Crown is unable to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Mr Sloan personally committed any of the physical acts that caused the death of Ms Carroll.
21. Three smoked cigarette butts were found in the bushland only metres from where Ms Carroll's body was found. All three butts were on the ground next to each other. Ms Carroll's DNA was linked to one of those cigarette butts.
22. Ms Carroll's body was found by a bushwalker on 29 July 2020.

Autopsy findings

1. At autopsy it was noted that what directly caused death was unascertainable due to burning of the body and decomposition.
2. At autopsy the following was noted: "General condition of the deceased's body A. The deceased's body appeared to be relatively well preserved below the level of the mid abdomen and showed varying degrees of burns/heat related changes above that level. B. The left arm was reasonably preserved but the right upper arm and back of the torso were burnt. C. There was significant postmortem decomposition with maggot predation. Most internal organs were severely autolysed (as such internal organs were not examined). No definitive (non-heat related) injury of the internal organs could be identified. The skull was detached from the body, and no soft neck tissue or brain remained. D. There were no signs of trauma to the ribs, sternum (breastbone) and clavicle (collar bone). Trauma to the head E. The cranium and mandible were reconstructed by an anthropologist with superglue. Images of that reconstruction can be found below. F. The mandible was in one piece, but the cranium was in 61 fragments. G. Much of the left and all of the right orbit and most of the midface were fragmented. H. On reconstruction some of the fragments of the skull were deformed making it difficult to cleanly fit fragments together. This kind of deformation is a sign that the bone was 'green' or fresh when those fractures occurred, but it could not be determined whether the fractures occurred before, during or shortly after death. The fractures were consistent with perimortem trauma. Injury to the left hand and forearm I. There were areas of bruising ('contusion') over the left hand and left forearm. J. There was an undisplaced vertical linear fracture through the distal phalanx of the thumb. This was a possible defensive injury. Injury to upper back K. There was a curvilinear slicing/cutting of the skin on the upper back of the torso."

Events after the murder

1. After killing Ms Carroll, Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan travelled back to the Hunts Hotel in Mr Parkes' HiLux. They arrived back at 4:59am.
2. About an hour after their arrival at the Hunts Hotel, Mr Parkes contacted an escort/girlfriend (Witness D) and arranged for her to attend the Hunts Hotel. When she arrived at the hotel, Mr Parkes arranged for her to assist him by cleaning the clothes and shoes they were wearing at the time of the murder.
3. On 18 July 2020, Mr Sloan checked out of the Hunts Hotel, although he checked in again for one night on 25 July 2020.
4. On 20 July 2020, Mr Parkes checked out of the Hunts Hotel.
5. After the murder, Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan continued to supply prohibited drugs. Mr Parkes stayed at 54A Rosford Street, Smithfield and other places such as his ex-partner's family home/farm in Rossmore.
6. Mr Sloan moved into a flat in Cabramatta.
7. On 3 August 2020, Mr Parkes drove to the general area of the crime scene and took photos of himself in his Toyota HiLux driving on dirt tracks in the area.
8. In early August 2020, police obtained telecommunications interceptions warrants to monitor the communications of Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan.
9. Around 7 August 2020, the relationship between Mr Parkes and Mr Sloan deteriorated.
10. On 14 August 2020, Mr Parkes was arrested in relation to an unrelated matter. He was refused bail.

Telephone intercept product

1. At 2:05am on 26 August 2020, police intercepted a conversation between Mr Sloan and Santiago Fernandez. During the call, Mr Fernandez said he had tried to get in touch with the girl from the motel (a reference to Ms Carroll) to get some "weed". Mr Sloan denied knowing her and said, "Don't you watch the news?... Stop talking about it. Seriously."
2. On 6 April 2021, Mr Sloan was arrested in relation to the index offence. He exercised his right to silence and declined to be interviewed.

Proceedings on sentence

1. At the proceedings on sentence on 19 July 2024 the Crown tendered the Crown bundle which included Mr Sloan's criminal history, his custodial record and a victim impact statement from Ms Carroll's mother, Anne Carroll.
2. Mr Sloan relied on his medical records produced by Corrective Services NSW and Justice Health, records related to an assault in custody in September 2023 and a report from Ms Ann-Marie De Santa Brigida, psychologist, dated 18 July 2024.
3. Mr Sloan did not give evidence on sentence nor call any witnesses.
4. Both counsel for the Crown and senior counsel for Mr Sloan provided helpful written submissions on sentence which were supplemented orally at the proceedings.

Motive

1. No motive for the murder was expressly stated in the Agreed Facts but possible motives can be gleaned from them. Those motives arise from the fact that Mr Parkes complained to Witness H that the deceased wanted her money back, knew too much about the drug dealing and had gone to the police about a stolen car. The Crown submitted that I would find these to be the motives for the murder.
2. Motive is not an element of the offence of murder. There was no requirement for the Crown to establish one, but motive is a matter relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness.
3. I am satisfied that Ms Carroll agreed to invest in Mr Parkes' drug business to make some money. Witness H gave evidence that Mr Parkes wanted to keep Ms Carroll's money, especially after losing the money he did at the border. Mr Parkes was worried that she might tell police about the drug dealing given she had reported her stolen hire car to police. I am also satisfied that at the time of the murder, Mr Sloan worked for Mr Parkes and looked up to him, and that both men were users of high amounts of "ice" during the period leading up to the murder. In that criminal milieu, Mr Parkes decided that Ms Carroll had to be killed and recruited Mr Sloan to assist him.

Factual disputes

1. Before assessing the objective seriousness, I must first make two findings of fact.

Did Mr Sloan assault Ms Carroll on 9 July?

1. The Crown case is that, several days before her death, in the early hours of 9 July 2020, Mr Sloan entered Ms Carroll's room and assaulted her causing a black eye. Mr Sloan does not agree to that fact and submits that the Crown cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
2. At the proceedings on sentence, the Crown tendered a number of CCTV stills and a USB containing an extract of some of the CCTV footage. A "selfie" of Ms Carroll showing a black eye was also tendered.
3. At 12:47am on 9 July 2020, Ms Carroll was captured by CCTV exiting her room. No injuries can be seen on her face at that time. At 3:14am, Mr Sloan was captured by the carpark CCTV cameras climbing over the balcony of his room and entering Ms Carroll's room via her balcony. At 4:04am, Mr Sloan was captured by the hallway CCTV cameras exiting Ms Carroll's room and returning to his own room. The next time Ms Carroll is captured by CCTV cameras leaving her room, at 9:49 am on 9 July, there is a visible bruise on her right eye.
4. The Crown submitted that the CCTV stills permit the drawing of an inference beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Sloan assaulted Ms Carroll on 9 July.
5. On 11 July, Ms Carroll sent pictures of this injury to Mr Parkes by text message. She did not send any text message explaining how she got the bruising. Nor was Mr Parkes' evidence at trial of what she told him about the photo admissible against Mr Sloan in these proceedings on sentence.
6. Over a month later, on 13 August, Mr Parkes sent a message to Mr Sloan calling him a "woman basher". This was about a month after the murder and given that Mr Parkes has always alleged that it was Mr Sloan who physically killed the deceased, the Crown accepted that this text message was open to two interpretations: he could have been referring to the alleged assault on 9 July 2020 or to the murder.
7. I have considered the limited evidence relied upon by the Crown to prove the assault. Based on the CCTV footage, I consider it to be highly likely that Mr Sloan assaulted the deceased in the manner alleged by the Crown. The difficulty is, as the Crown quite properly conceded, without any direct evidence of what happened in the room I cannot exclude the reasonable possibility that Ms Carroll, who was a heavy drug user at the time, hurt herself in some other way during the night. Nor is there any explanation as to why she sent the photo of herself to Mr Parkes.
8. Accordingly, despite the strong suspicion I have in this regard, I am not ultimately able to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Sloan assaulted Ms Carroll on 9 July 2020 based on the limited material before me.

When did Mr Sloan join the agreement?

1. The second factual dispute concerns when it was that Mr Sloan agreed with Mr Parkes to kill Ms Carroll. The Agreed Facts are silent on this issue.
2. The Crown submitted that the agreement had been formed by the time Mr Parkes removed Ms Carroll from the Hunts Hotel, on 11 July 2020. The Agreed Facts disclose that Mr Sloan met with Mr Parkes upon his return from the South Australian border on 11 July 2020. He later drove the Mercedes to the hotel and removed the baseball bat and the yellow jerry can from the Mercedes and put them on Mr Parkes' balcony. Ms Carroll was taken from the hotel by Mr Parkes a few hours later.
3. Although I consider it to be highly probable, given the close relationship between the two men, that Mr Sloan knew by the time that Ms Carroll left the hotel with Mr Parkes that she would not return, there is nothing in the Agreed Facts that would permit me to be satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The Crown next relied on the inferences to be drawn from the CCTV footage at 10:37am on 12 July 2020 where Mr Sloan is captured looking in the direction of the housekeeping cart outside the deceased's room, walking a few steps before stopping, turning around, and looking in the direction of the door. The Crown submitted that there was no other reasonable explanation for that behaviour other than the fact that Mr Sloan was aware that the deceased would not return to the Hunts Hotel. The footage is consistent with him being anxious about the cleaners entering her room.
5. I have considered this evidence in the context of the events on 11 July 2020. I can perceive no other explanation for Mr Sloan's behaviour that morning but that he was worried the cleaners would go into Ms Carroll's room and find that she was not there. At about 10:40am, Mr Sloan texted Mr Parkes that he was about to be "booted out" of the hotel. After that text, Mr Parkes gave him cash which he used to pay for his, Mr Parkes', and Ms Carroll's room at 12.20pm. Mr Sloan was in Mr Parkes' company throughout most of the day. Then, from 6:26pm until 6:50pm both men remained in Ms Carroll's room. It is unlikely they sat in silence. They obviously discussed something. Then at 6:50pm, Mr Sloan climbed over the balcony to Ms Carroll's room and carried a bag out of Mr Carroll's room before returning to her room without the bag. The Agreed Facts describe this as "Mr Sloan doing Mr Parkes' dirty work". That dirty work could only be the removal of something either valuable or incriminating from Ms Carroll's room; I am unable to make a finding as to which of these it was.
6. Then when the two men left Ms Carroll's room together at 6:51pm, Mr Parkes was carrying a white plastic bag which he handed to Mr Sloan and told him to "get rid of", which he did by placing it outside his door. In addition to these matters, I have also had regard to the fact that there is no evidence of any communication by Mr Sloan with Ms Carroll after 11 July.
7. Having considered this material in the context of everything that occurred that day and the previous day and in the context that Mr Sloan worked for Mr Parkes and looked up to him, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that by the time Mr Sloan left Ms Carroll's room with Mr Parkes on 12 July 2020 he had agreed to assist Mr Parkes to kill her.

Objective seriousness

1. As I have already observed, I am unable to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Sloan physically killed Ms Carroll. Nor am I able to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Parkes physically killed her. I made the same finding when sentencing Mr Parkes.
2. What is clear is that Ms Carroll was assaulted and died. Her body was set alight in a crevice behind a large rock. Although she was probably killed with the baseball bat that was not the subject of an Agreed Fact.
3. The Crown submitted that the objective seriousness was well above the mid-range of objective seriousness given the intention to kill, degree of planning, motive and the circumstances of Ms Carroll's death.
4. On behalf of Mr Sloan, it was submitted that Mr Sloan's later involvement in the agreement is relevant to my determination of the objective seriousness of the offence. It was also submitted that the motive was that of Mr Parkes rather than Mr Sloan, given that Mr Parkes was in charge of the drug business and Ms Carroll gave the $8,000 to Mr Parkes. For those reasons, Mr Sloan submitted that it would be an overstatement to find that this offence falls "well above the middle of the range of objective seriousness", as the Crown contended.
5. Although it is not mandatory to position the objective seriousness of an offence along any notional range, it seems to me that there is benefit in doing so in murder cases given the maximum penalty of life, the SNPP of 20 years, and the lengthy sentence to be imposed.
6. I would assess this murder as being above the mid-range of objective seriousness but not substantially so. The murder was planned, occurred in company as part of a joint criminal enterprise and in the context of criminal activity, namely drug dealing. It also included a financial motive. The deceased was isolated before her death then taken to remote bushland where she had no chance of escape and killed. Although it cannot be known what was going through Ms Carroll's mind before her death, it must have been an absolutely terrifying experience for her.
7. The fact that I am to sentence Mr Sloan on the basis of being part of a joint criminal enterprise to murder Ms Carroll, rather than as a principal offender who physically killed her, does not of itself reduce his objective criminality. Despite this, when I consider the application of the parity principle, I will consider Mr Sloan's criminality relative to that of Mr Parkes.

Victim impact statement

1. The Crown tendered a victim impact statement from Ms Carroll's mother, Anne Carroll, which she read to the court. Section 30E(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ("Sentencing Act") provides that when a victim impact statement is tendered in relation to an offence, the court must consider the statement and may make any comment on the statement that the court considers appropriate. The Crown did not rely on s 30E(3) of the Sentencing Act.
2. Ms Carroll's mother, Anne, provided some insight into the short life of her daughter Najma. She had been a gifted child who attended the opportunity class at Woollahra Public School and later Sydney Girls High School where she attained an UAI of 92.6. She gained admission to the University of Sydney to study physiotherapy. She also excelled at sport. Sadly, she was the victim of such severe emotional abuse by a male family member as a teenager that she self-medicated instead of seeking help. She was introduced to heroin by an older man whilst in a rehabilitation facility and went on to struggle with heroin addiction for the rest of her short life.
3. Anne Carroll described how her daughter was a high achiever until the grip of drug addiction and how her daughter's attempts to overcome that addiction resulted in periods where she was able to have steady employment and "enjoy [a] loving relationship". But her addiction made her vulnerable and she placed her trust in the wrong men.
4. Ms Carroll's mother described her shock at first hearing of her daughter's tragic death. Her life has changed dramatically since the day police contacted her to inform her that the badly burnt body of a young woman found in remote bushland was her daughter. She described how unimaginable and difficult it was for her to bury her daughter and how this abnormal and unforeseen event has turned her life "upside down" and it would never again "right itself". She told the court how the "horrific murder of a son or daughter is not something that one "gets over" but that "one gradually learns to integrate the emotional pain into one's much-changed life and cope as best one can". She described how since Najma's death she is no longer able to work and support herself independently and is in receipt of a disability support pension. She suffers from complex grief disorder the symptoms of which include sleep and appetite disturbances, nightmares, difficulties with concentration, fatigue, forgetfulness, and anxiety.
5. As is often observed in sentencing matters involving the death of a person, no sentence that I might impose could adequately reflect the loss of a dear family member. Nor can any sentence possibly assuage the grief of those who were close to the deceased. On behalf of the court, I extend my sincere condolences to the family and friends of Najma Carroll.

Mr Sloan's subjective case

1. Mr Sloan is 61 years old. His father, who is aged 82, was described by Mr Sloan as alcoholic who never worked a day in his life. Mr Sloan has had no contact with his father since he entered custody.
2. Mr Sloan never met his mother and does not know her name. He is one of two children. He has an older sister, Doreen, who is 62 and employed with no history of "problems". Mr Sloan and his sister are still in contact.
3. Both Mr Sloan and his sister Doreen were raised by his paternal grandmother who died in 2020. He resided with her between the ages of two and 15. His grandmother was a Jehovah's Witness who would tell him that "the world is going to end any day". She never gave him much hope for the future. She rented out a one-bedroom granny flat at the rear of her property to a soldier who sexually assaulted Mr Sloan when he was aged around eight years old for about 5 to 6 months. This entailed oral sex and penetration. Mr Sloan told his psychologist that the abuser had a gun and threatened to shoot his grandmother if he told anyone about the abuse. He eventually told an uncle, and the soldier was "kicked out of" the granny flat. Mr Sloan reported that he was also sexually assaulted by a teacher named Mr Brown when he was in year seven at Casula High School. This abuse occurred over a two-month period and also involved penetration. Apparently, Mr Sloan has a compensation claim currently pending in relation to that abuse.
4. Mr Sloan has spent considerable periods in custody and has only had brief relationships with females throughout his life. Although he did have one son, Matthew, sadly, he died from an overdose at the age of 20.
5. Whilst he was living with his grandmother, Mr Sloan had limited contact with his father who would occasionally visit them in an inebriated state. Mr Sloan reported that his father would physically assault him with "anything he could get his hands on" when drunk.
6. Mr Sloan attended Liverpool West Public School and then Casula High School but after the sexual abuse he began to truant and finally left school in Year 9. He recalled that he was often in trouble for misbehaviour. Despite this, he was in a mainstream class and is able to read and write.
7. Although he initially worked for about nine months after leaving school as a glasscutter and glazier, he left of his own volition and has never had another job, instead relying primarily on unemployment benefits. He was also on a disability support pension for about two years after he was shot in the leg when he was 38.

Drug and alcohol history

1. Mr Sloan stated that he first experimented with cannabis when he was 12 years old and continued to smoke until about 10 years ago, averaging 3 grams per day.
2. Mr Sloan first experimented with amphetamines when he was about 15 or 16 years of age. When he was 18 years old, he first used heroin, which he continued using until 10 years ago.
3. Mr Sloan told his psychologist that 10 years ago he ceased all substance abuse. At one stage he had contracted hepatitis C from his intravenous heroin use, but the virus was eliminated following treatment.
4. He was briefly on a methadone program when he was 38 years old and has also briefly been on the Buprenorphine program.
5. When he was released from custody in 2020, he moved to Sydney to live with his father. They clashed and after one month he moved into the Hunt's Hotel, where he was reintroduced to ice by Mr Parkes. Mr Sloan states that during this period he was using ice every day, averaging 1 gram over a 24-hour period. Mr Sloan was using ice at the time of the murder of Ms Carroll.

Criminal history

1. Mr Sloan's criminal offending commenced in New South Wales in 1980 when he was 17 years old, when he was placed on a 12-month good behaviour bond in the Children's Court for false pretences. In 1983, he was placed on a good behaviour bond for 3 years for drug possession and in 1984, he was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for using a prohibited drug.
2. Mr Sloan's criminal history in Victoria began in 1985, when he failed to appear in relation to theft and burglary charges. Warrants for his arrest were issued in relation to each charge.
3. Meanwhile, in 1986, Mr Sloan was sentenced in New South Wales to 3 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months in relation to break, enter, and steal charges. Whilst serving this sentence, he served a wholly concurrent 8 days of imprisonment in relation to unlicensed driving and stating false name charges. He was also fined and disqualified from driving. In 1989, Mr Sloan was sentenced to an effective term of 7 years 4 months and 2 days for a number of charges including possession and administration of a prohibited drug, obtaining money by deception, assault and robbery, armed robbery with wounding and theft of a motor vehicle.
4. Mr Sloan was released on parole on 10 August 1994 but only eight days later, on 18 August 1994 he breached his parole and was returned to custody. Whilst serving the balance of his sentence, he was sentenced to a further term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years for offences of armed robbery and possession of a shortened firearm.
5. In 1996, Mr Sloan was sentenced in Victoria to 9 months imprisonment for theft, burglary, blackmail and assault police charges and for failing to appear in relation to those charges.
6. In 2001, Mr Sloan was sentenced in New South Wales to an effective term of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months in relation to armed robbery charges with charges of act with intent to influence witness, pervert the course of justice and fabricate false evidence taken into account on Form 1.
7. In 2005, Mr Sloan was granted bail in South Australia in relation to two counts of aggravated robbery with an offensive weapon, committed on 28 February and 4 March 2005. A bench warrant for his arrest was issued after he failed to appear in relation to those charges.
8. Also in 2005, in Victoria, Mr Sloan was sentenced to 4 months imprisonment in relation to a number of charges including drug possession and possessing a firearm as a prohibited person. In 2007, he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment in Victoria with a non-parole period of 2 years, 5 months and 14 days for two armed robbery charges and theft of a motor vehicle.
9. In 2011, Mr Sloan was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months for offences committed in Victoria including aggravated burglary, false imprisonment, possessing an unregulated firearm, theft, and possession of drugs.
10. Mr Sloan was released from custody on 9 May 2020 when his then sentence expired. He committed the murder with Mr Parkes just over two months later.
11. Relevant to the application of the totality principle, Mr Sloan was incarcerated on 4 November 2020 for a period of 3 months for using a carriage service to threaten serious harm and had convictions with no other penalty recorded in relation to driving and drug matters. He was sentenced to 3 years and 3 months imprisonment commencing 3 February 2021 with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months in relation to stalk/intimidate offences. He was first eligible for parole for that sentence on 2 May 2023.
12. Mr Sloan's criminal history demonstrates that he has spent a significant period of his adult life in custody with only brief periods of time in the community between lengthy sentences of imprisonment. It was not suggested that his criminal history was an aggravating factor, but it was common ground that it denied him any leniency on sentence.

Mental health

1. Mr Sloan reported that he attempted self-harm at around age 22 and tried to shoot himself but his grandmother found him and stopped him. He has no other attempts at self-harm. He was briefly on antidepressants whilst incarcerated in Victoria after he was shot in the leg. He has never consulted a psychiatrist or psychologist in the community.
2. Mr Sloan was assessed by Ms De Santa Brigida as suffering from a stimulant use disorder for amphetamine-type substances at a severe level. She suggested in her report that he would have met the criteria for Oppositional Defiant Disorder during his development years and subsequently met the criteria for a Conduct Disorder Adolescent onset subtype. She further noted that based on his criminal history he would meet the criteria for an Antisocial Personality disorder.
3. Ms De Santa Brigida administered the Trauma Symptom Inventory test to evaluate his post-traumatic stress and other psychological sequalae of traumatic events. Following that test she opined that Mr Sloan has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which occurred against a background of complex trauma, in particular his exposure to developmental trauma. She stated that he exhibited classic symptoms of PTSD including intrusive thoughts, dreams and nightmares, avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma, and problems relating to others. Despite this, she reported that his results for the anger scale were not significantly elevated which appeared to be at odds with the current offence. Because of that she administered another test: the STAXI-2, which was developed to assess components of anger. Mr Sloan scored in the subclinical range in all of the indices indicating that he would expend his energy in reducing his anger as soon as possible.
4. Ms De Santa Brigida also administered a number of other tests including a personality assessment screener. His responses indicated a marked potential for problems with "acting out". Mr Sloan is very likely to be impulsive and attention seeking. His responses also indicated a marked potential for problems with health, suicidal thinking, and social withdrawal.
5. In conclusion, Ms De Santa Brigida noted a long history of substance abuse developed against a background of developmental trauma but with a low propensity for anger.
6. It was not submitted on behalf of Mr Sloan that any of the mental health issues identified by Ms de Santa Brigida were such as to reduce Mr Sloan's moral culpability.

Moral culpability

1. I have considered the material placed before me regarding Mr Sloan's personal circumstances. An assessment of an offender's moral culpability extends to a consideration of some of their personal circumstances, including circumstances which may affect their capacity to reason, appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions or control their conduct. [8]
2. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Sloan that his highly disadvantaged and traumatic childhood and youth should allow for some diminution of his moral culpability as held by the High Court in Bugmy v The Queen. [9] As Simpson J observed in R v Millwood: [10] "I am not prepared to accept that an offender who has the start in life that the respondent had bears equal moral responsibility with one who has had what might be termed a 'n ormal' or 'advantaged' upbringing. Common sense and common humanity dictate that such a person will have fewer emotional resources to guide his (or her) behavioural decisions."
3. Similarly, her Honour observed more recently: [11] "… a childhood or adolescence marked by profound disadvantage may have an inhibitory effect on the development of values, on the acquisition of a moral compass, and on the capacity to make behavioural decisions in accordance with prevailing social norms. The relevant causal connection is between the dysfunctional background and the offender's impaired socialisation and adjustment to, and conduct in accordance with, those social norms."
4. The Crown did not contend otherwise than that I would make a finding of reduced moral culpability in relation to Mr Sloan on account of his profoundly deprived childhood. I have considered that finding in the context of the material before me, including Mr Sloan's significant criminal history. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to place less weight on the sentencing purpose of general deterrence in this matter given Mr Sloan's reduced moral culpability.

Physical health

1. Medical records were tendered in relation to Mr Sloan's health condition in custody. He reported to his psychologist that he was shot in a motel room approximately 25 years ago in the lower left leg. Subsequent treatment involved the insertion of an iron nail for an open tibia and fibula fracture resulting from the wound. Some residual shrapnel remains in the wound. The injury and treatment resulted in nerve damage, and he has been prescribed Lyrica for neuropathic pain. As a result of the injury, his left leg is shorter than his right leg.
2. Mr Sloan has also experienced some heart issues and chest pain in custody. Notes from Justice Health indicate right lateral chest wall pain and left sided chest pain since 3 June 2021, for which he is on some medication. Dr Vasilis Panayi from the Prince of Wales Hospital in Randwick noted in 2021 that his symptoms were consistent with likely pericarditis. He drew up a treatment plan which was revised in 2023. Further Justice Health notes record a possible angina variant.

Remorse

1. There was no reference in the psychologist's report to any discussion of the offence to which Mr Sloan pleaded guilty. Nor was any other material relevant to a finding of remorse put before the court. Although it is accepted that an offender does not have to give evidence in order for a finding of remorse to be made, I am unable to find Mr Sloan is remorseful in the absence of any evidence of that fact beyond his bare plea of guilty.

Prospects for rehabilitation/Risk of re-offending

1. As I observed when I sentenced Mr Parkes, Mr Sloan will be an elderly man when he is released from custody. I am satisfied that it is unlikely he will be in a position to further re-offend upon his release.

Totality

1. Mr Sloan has been in custody since 4 November 2020. Since that time, he has served sentences, the non-parole period for which expired on 2 May 2023 and the head sentence expired on 2 May 2024.
2. Mr Sloan was arrested for the murder offence on 6 April 2021. This is the earliest possible commencement date for the sentence. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Sloan that I would commence the sentence sometime before 3 May 2023 given the much lower seriousness of the offences he was in custody for since 4 November 2020, that at least two of them occurred within a few months of the murder and that had Mr Sloan been sentenced for the murder during the non-parole period of those offences, the sentence would have had to have commenced no later than 3 May 2023.
3. I have considered these submissions and the proper application of the totality principle in this matter. I propose to backdate the commencement of the murder sentence such that it is partially concurrent with his recent sentences. The commencement date will be 4 May 2022.

Parity

1. I am required to ensure that both Mr Sloan and Mr Parkes receive equal justice. That does not mean that they should receive the same sentence. It is well established that factors such as the background, criminal history and the role played by each offender may justify some disparity. [12] In drawing distinctions between the two offenders I am permitted to make qualitative and discretionary judgments.
2. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Sloan that he should receive a substantially shorter sentence than Mr Parkes on two bases: that his criminality is lower than that of Mr Parkes and that, unlike Mr Parkes, he is entitled to a discount of 10% for his plea of guilty.
3. Mr Parkes was sentenced on 26 July 2024 to a head sentence of 31 years with a non-parole period of 21 years and 6 months. [13] Based on the findings I have made I am satisfied that Mr Sloan's criminality is lower than Mr Parkes'. I have found that Mr Parkes was the person who made the decision to kill Ms Carroll, that the motive for the murder was Mr Parkes' motive and that Mr Sloan entered the agreement to kill Ms Carroll later than Mr Parkes. Further, I am satisfied that the Agreed Facts disclose that Mr Sloan assisted Mr Parkes out of a sense of misguided loyalty to him.
4. To some extent, the findings I have made regarding the relative criminality of the two offenders flows from the fact that whereas Mr Sloan pleaded guilty before trial, Mr Parkes did not. In making factual findings about Mr Parkes' role, I was permitted to have regard to all of the evidence given at his six-week trial. In making factual findings in relation to Mr Sloan I was confined to the Agreed Facts tendered and was required to put out of my mind the evidence adduced at Mr Parkes' trial. Thus, by pleading guilty Mr Sloan is not only entitled to a 10% discount, but he stands to be sentenced on more favourable negotiated factual findings. It may well be that Mr Parkes will feel a sense of grievance about this, but the application of the parity principle does not involve a judgment about the feelings of the person complaining that he or she received a higher sentence than a co-offender.
5. Not only have I made different findings about the offenders' objective criminality the offenders presented different subjective cases as well. Although Mr Sloan has a significantly worse criminal history, he otherwise had a stronger subjective case including matters relevant to the Bugmy principle. Otherwise, it seems to me that both offenders will suffer more onerous conditions in custody, and I have made a number of similar findings in relation to many of the other relevant sentencing factors.
6. I ultimately accept the submission made on Mr Sloan's behalf that putting the discount for the plea of guilty to one side, Mr Sloan's starting point will be lower than that of Mr Parkes.

Hardship in custody

1. There are three factors which either have or will contribute to Mr Sloan experiencing more onerous conditions of custody.
2. First, as I have already mentioned, his physical and mental health issues will render his time in custody more onerous. Ms De Santa Brigida noted that his background of developmental trauma means that he is more prone to hyperarousal and hypervigilance, and, given his age, his incarceration will be physically demanding, particularly considering the ongoing neuropathic pain and associated conditions arising from his gunshot injury.
3. Secondly, Mr Sloan has been threatened and assaulted in custody on a number of occasions. He has been in different forms of protective or restrictive custody since he entered custody. The records tendered on his behalf establish that he has notified Corrective Services of threats and asked not to associate with seven named inmates. Only three days after this notification, he was assaulted by another inmate causing him serious facial injuries. Although it is unclear whether this has any connection to the assaults, I note that he was associated with the gang "the Heathens" in Melbourne approximately 10 years ago.
4. Given that Mr Sloan is now 61 years old, I accept that his increasing age may well reduce his capacity to defend himself physically should he be the subject of any further assaults.
5. Thirdly, Mr Sloan entered custody on 4 November 2020 and remained in custody throughout most of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is well known that inmates suffered more onerous conditions of custody than usual during that period, and this is a further basis upon which he has suffered hardship.

Special circumstances

1. It was submitted on behalf of Mr Sloan that the significant degree of accumulation arising from serving sentences since 4 November 2020 warrants a finding of special circumstances and a variation of the statutory ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period. [14]
2. There are two bases upon which I could find special circumstances in this matter.
3. First, there is authority for the proposition that the fact that an offender has been serving a sentence prior to the sentence to be imposed is a proper basis to make a finding of special circumstances. This is so as to avoid a ratio whereby the effective non-parole period is greater than 75% of the effective head sentence when that earlier time in custody is considered. [15]
4. Secondly, given the lengthy sentence to be imposed on Mr Sloan, it could not be said that his non-parole period should be reduced relative to the head sentence on the basis that he needs a lengthier period on parole. But it is important to note that a finding of special circumstances need not be based exclusively, or primarily, on the fact that it is desirable for an offender to be subjected to an extended period of supervision on parole. The scope of the considerations relevant to the determination of "special circumstances" must encompass the full range of issues which are relevant to the determination of the minimum period of actual incarceration without hope of release on parole. [16] It is somewhat unusual to have three separate bases upon which an offender will serve their time in custody under more onerous than usual conditions. I am satisfied that this is a second basis upon which I propose to vary the statutory ratio.
5. I propose to reduce the non-parole period relative to the head sentence to arrive at a ratio of just under 70%. The ratio between the effective head sentence and the effective non-parole period is approximately 71.2%.

Conclusion

1. I have had regard to the purposes of sentencing. I have considered the objective seriousness of the offence, Mr Sloan's lesser role, questions of parity and totality, his extensive criminal history, his subjective case generally including the Bugmy principle and the other findings I have already referred to, to arrive at what I consider to be an appropriate sentence.
2. But for the plea of guilty I would have imposed a head sentence of 28 years imprisonment. Applying the 10% discount to that starting point and rounding down slightly results in a sentence of 25 years and 2 months.

Orders

1. For the offence of murder Robert Sloan I convict you and sentence you as follows: 1. Imprisonment for a term of 25 years and 2 months to commence on 4 May 2022 and conclude on 3 July 2047. 2. The non-parole period is 17 years and 6 months to commence on 4 May 2022 and conclude on 3 November 2039. That is the first date that you are eligible for parole. 3. I note that the effective total head sentence (including the sentences served since 4 November 2020) is 26 years and 8 months and the effective non-parole period is 19 years. 4. Pursuant to s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), the offender is advised of the existence of that Act and of its application to the offence of which he has been convicted. His legal representatives are requested to advise him of the implications of that Act to him.

Endnotes

1. Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 25D(3)(b).
2. R v Parkes (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 910.
3. The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 at [27] (per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Hayne and Callinan JJ).
4. Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 at [64] (per French CJ, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ).
5. Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [51] per McHugh J; confirmed by the Court in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 at [26].
6. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 18(1)(a).
7. Table behind s 54B Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).
8. Paterson v R [2021] NSWCCA 273 at [31].
9. (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37.
10. [2012] NSWCCA 2.
11. R v MJ [2023] NSWCCA 306 at [5].
12. Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 at [31] (per French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ).
13. Ibid.
14. Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 44(2).
15. Harris v R [2023] NSWCCA 44.
16. R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534 at [57]. 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: 05 August 2024