[2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
[2010] NSWCCA 194
Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348
[1989] HCA 33
Milat v R
[2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Sumpton (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 684
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
[2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1[2010] NSWCCA 194
Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348[1989] HCA 33
Milat v R[2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Sumpton (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 684
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Judgment (3 paragraphs)
[1]
Judgment
Jack Mulligan was just 25 years old on 28 September 2019 when his life was senselessly, tragically and inexplicably cut short. Jack's mother and other family members sat quietly in the back of the Court during the sentencing hearing of the young woman responsible for Jack's death. None of them felt able to cope with providing the Court with a victim impact statement, no doubt because of the emotional toll that would take on them. I completely understand their position. Like them, I do not have the words to express the tragedy of Jack's death. I do not know very much about Jack, but I know that his life was sacred and that his life was just as valuable as any victim of homicide whose family members provide the Court with victim impact statements explaining their grief, loss and suffering. I also know that he was greatly loved and valued by his mother and other family members because I observed their grief as they sat with dignity in the public gallery and listened to the evidence of what happened to their loved one and the personal circumstances and background of Sharee Lorraine Turnbull, the offender responsible for taking his life away.
Ms Turnbull now stands to be sentenced for the murder of Jack Mulligan. She faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years. Neither a life sentence, nor the legislated standard non-parole period, is appropriate in the circumstances of her case. However, those penalties demonstrate the seriousness with which the law views the offence of murder and the taking of human life and represent important guideposts to a principled assessment of the proper sentencing response. They must be borne in mind throughout the process of determining the penalty to be imposed.
Ms Turnbull pleaded guilty to the charge of murder at an early stage. She and the prosecuting authority agreed as to the facts of the case. That agreement is reflected in a statement of agreed facts which was tendered at the sentencing hearing (Exhibit A). It is unnecessary to set out in full the five page narrative of what occurred. I will summarise the facts as briefly as I can.
The killing of Jack Mulligan was both senseless and inexplicable. There was no evidence of any animosity between Mr Mulligan and Ms Turnbull. Rather the evidence suggests that they were friends or associates. On the night of Mr Mulligan's death they were socialising together and perhaps looking to find drugs.
Mr Mulligan was killed shortly before 8.00pm on 28 September 2019. In the hours leading up to his killing, police had encountered Ms Turnbull and Mr Mulligan on several occasions. Some of the officers observed that Mr Mulligan appeared to be intoxicated and was bleeding from the knees. That observation was made at about 3:30pm. Mr Mulligan told the police that he was "fine" but that he had "had a bit to drink today". Ms Turnbull told police that they were "going home now", they "just had a bit to drink" and that Mr Mulligan was affected "a little bit more because of the medication he [was] on". At that stage police formed the view that Ms Turnbull was sober. Mr Mulligan was unsteady on his feet and his speech was slurred.
About two hours later police saw the pair again. Again, they noted that Mr Mulligan appeared to be affected by drugs. They observed that he was closing his eyes whilst speaking and that he was "slowly moving towards the ground". The deceased told police that he had just taken his methadone and Xanax, both of which were drugs prescribed to him. Police again noticed that he had blood running from his knees. The police also noticed that Ms Turnbull was "displaying some bizarre behaviour and was very talkative". She said she was looking after Mr Mulligan.
Around 6.00pm that night, Ms Turnbull and Mr Mulligan had been at the unit of Dale Petrie within a housing complex near Glebe. Some drugs were consumed and Mr Petrie formed the view that both Ms Turnbull and Mr Mulligan were affected by drugs. At around 7.45pm there is CCTV footage of Ms Turnbull, Mr Mulligan and two other men - Wayne Green and Trevor Boney - coming to and from the front steps of the unit complex.
At about 7.50pm the CCTV footage captures the offender approaching Mr Mulligan from behind whilst armed with a large knife. Without any warning or apparent reason Ms Turnbull repeatedly thrust the knife into the deceased. Mr Green said the deceased was "just trying to protect himself". Both Mr Green and Mr Boney were standing in the vicinity of the internal garbage bin room where the incident occurred. Neither intervened to assist Mr Mulligan in the course of the assault. Mr Mulligan was left bleeding while Ms Turnbull, along with Mr Green and Mr Boney, left the scene and rode away on bicycles. Meanwhile, Mr Mulligan stumbled onto the footpath, collapsed and cried for help. A local resident found him and called an ambulance. Mr Mulligan was taken to a nearby hospital and was operated upon. He did not survive the operation and life was pronounced extinct at 3.12am on 29 September 2019.
A post-mortem examination was conducted. It showed that Mr Mulligan suffered multiple stab wounds. The report was tendered into evidence (Exhibit C). There appeared to be only one wound of significance in terms of the cause of death. It was described as a 12.5cm long stab wound to the lower back that penetrated through the renal pelvis of the right kidney. Although the report does not say so, it seems clear that that was the fatal wound. The pathologist determined that the cause of death was "complications of multiple sharp force injuries". However the only stab wound which penetrated an organ was the one I have described. In addition to that injury there was a 3.8cm long stab wound to the left upper back. There were also a large number of incised or shallow stab wounds as recorded on page 5 of the Autopsy Report:
"Incised Wounds/Shallow Stab Wounds:
Top of head (4.2cm).
Scratch marks, right upper forehead (each 1.2cm).
Upper posterior neck (1.4cm).
Left cheek (3.8cm).
Right cheek (8.0cm).
Right side of neck (x3, 6.5, 0.5 and 1.8cm).
Left lower posterior neck (1.1cm).
Left lateral chest (5.3cm).
Right anterior hip (1.0cm).
Back (x6, 0.9 to 4.5cm, and 10cm scratch mark; clinical arterial bleeding from wound on right upper back).
Left anterior shoulder (4.0cm), and scratch mark (3.2cm).
Right posterior shoulder (3.4cm).
Left palm (0.7cm diameter, superficial)."
Toxicology analysis showed the presence of alcohol, methylamphetamine, morphine, codeine and other prescription drugs in Mr Mulligan's body.
Because of what was described as the "frenzied" nature of the stabbing and the large number of stab wounds, the prosecution asked me to infer that Ms Turnbull had an intention to kill at the time she stabbed Mr Mulligan. I accept that this finding is open on the evidence. However, before Ms Turnbull can be sentenced on the basis of an intention to kill, all other reasonable inferences must be ruled out. In other words, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that her intention was to kill as opposed to inflicting grievous bodily harm. I am not satisfied to that standard that Ms Turnbull formed an intention to kill.
I have reached the conclusion that it is reasonably possible that Ms Turnbull's intention was to inflict really serious injury (grievous bodily harm), rather than to kill Mr Mulligan. The reasons for that conclusion, stated briefly, are as follows:
1. There was no evidence of any animosity between Ms Turnbull and Mr Mulligan in the time leading up to the killing.
2. The events happened very quickly, and inexplicably, and were not accompanied by any words that would suggest that Ms Turnbull intended to kill Mr Mulligan when she stabbed him multiple times.
3. Observations of Ms Turnbull's behaviour earlier in the night were consistent with her either being affected by drugs, having some form of psychotic episode or, most likely, a combination of both. Her mental condition was such that her capacity to form a specific intention to kill may have been compromised or affected. This is not to take into account her self-induced intoxication as a mitigating feature, but rather to consider her mental state in determining her actual intention at the time of the stabbing.
4. While there were multiple stab wounds, there was only one from which any intention to kill could readily be inferred.
Ms Turnbull gave evidence and was cross-examined. It was not put to her that she intended to kill Mr Mulligan. While this does not preclude the Prosecutor from making the submission, Ms Turnbull was not afforded the opportunity to answer the allegation.
While the nature of the wound that penetrated Mr Mulligan's kidney, and the number of separate stab wounds, is capable of supporting a finding that the offender intended to kill, taking into account all of the relevant circumstances I am unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms Turnbull intended to kill Mr Mulligan. However, I accept the Prosecutor's submission that this is a case where the distinction does not greatly reduce the objective gravity of the offending. This is because of the senselessness of the killing and because of the number of stab wounds. The conclusion that, at the relevant time, Ms Turnbull intended to inflict extremely serious injury upon Mr Mulligan is inevitable.
That analysis or narrative demonstrates that, viewed objectively, this was a serious case of murder.
The seriousness of the offence is aggravated by the fact that it involved the actual use of violence and involved the use of weapon. [1] However, each of these is a relatively common feature of murder cases and should not be afforded too much weight as an aggravating feature. [2] The violence and use of the weapon have also been taken into account in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence.
A further aggravating feature is that, at the time of the killing, Ms Turnbull was on parole in relation to a sentence imposed on her for an offence of reckless wounding. The facts of that offence formed part of the material tendered on sentence (see Exhibit A). The offence had similar characteristics to the events that led to Mr Mulligan's death. This is a significant aggravating feature.
On the earlier occasion, Ms Turnbull was armed with a knife and, without apparent cause, stabbed her victim from behind. The victim had three penetrating wounds to the right upper arm and chest and required surgical treatment. This incident, which was associated with an offence of assault with intent to rob, was dealt with in the Tamworth District Court on 4 April 2019. An aggregate sentence of 2 years and 6 months was imposed. There was a non-parole period of 15 months commencing on 15 February 2018. Ms Turnbull was released at the expiration of the non-parole period on 14 May 2019. The balance of the sentence (that is, the parole period) was not due to expire until 14 August 2020. It was just over four months after her release on parole that Ms Turnbull stabbed and killed Mr Mulligan.
The fact that Ms Turnbull breached conditional liberty by breaching parole is an aggravating feature of the offence. [3] It is a particularly grave aggravating feature because of the similarities between the facts of the present offence and the circumstances of the offence in relation to which she was on parole.
Ms Turnbull has a lengthy criminal history, including a number of relatively minor offences but also several offences of violence. This disentitles her to leniency although it is not a record of such significance that it would result in an increase to an otherwise proportionate sentence. It is put forward as a further aggravating feature of the offence, noting that the offence described above is a serious personal violence offence and the offender has previous offences of this kind on her record. I take it into account as such and in accordance with established authority. [4]
On the other hand, the offence was not planned or premeditated and not part of any organised criminal activity. [5]
For the purpose of the application of the standard non-parole period, I record my finding that the objective seriousness of the offence falls a little below the mid-range of objective seriousness for all offences of murder.
As I have said, Ms Turnbull pleaded guilty in the Local Court, and there is no dispute that she should receive a 25% reduction in her sentence as a result of her early plea. [6]
Further, in the circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the plea of guilty is demonstrative of genuine remorse. Ms Turnbull gave evidence in the sentencing hearing and was asked a number of questions concerning how she felt about what she had done. That evidence is recorded in the transcript as follows:
"Q. Do you understand that you did kill Jack?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you feel about that now?
A. A lot of guilt, a lot of shame, pain, something I'm not proud of.
Q. 'Something'?
A. I'm not proud of.
Q. Sorry?
A. Something I'm not proud of.
Q. You're not proud of?
A. Hmm. (Witness nodded).
Q. What other thoughts do you have about it?
A. I mean this… sorry.
Q. It's all right.
A. I do feel a lot of shame. I'm ashamed of who I am. There's a lot of guilt too as well. I'm not happy with how everything turned out.
Q. What about Jack's mum?
A. Oh. I feel a lot of pain for her, just cause I know what that pain is like to lose a child and I've inflicted that pain on someone else, and that I can't live with. And if I could take it back I would, in a heartbeat. I regret everything. I have to face that pain for the rest of my life. It's constantly on my conscious and that I can't live with.
Q. 'And'?
A. I can't live with that pain, but it's something that I have to face because I'm responsible, obviously."
The words on the page do not convey the degree of emotion permeating the courtroom at the time this evidence was given. In particular, before Ms Turnbull answered the first question she spent something like 30 seconds breathing deeply in an attempt to compose herself and find the right words. When Senior Counsel asked her the question "What about Jack's mum?" both Ms Turnbull and Mr Mulligan's mother wept for some time. It was a moving moment and I was satisfied that Ms Turnbull's remorse and contrition was genuine and heartfelt. No submission to the contrary was made by the Prosecutor.
Ms Turnbull has a criminal record that goes back many years. Her record includes dishonesty offences and driving offences as well as a number of less serious offences of violence, including offences of common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. In 2012, Ms Turnbull was convicted in Bourke Local Court of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against her sister, Karla. A conditional good behaviour bond (see s 9 of the Sentencing Procedure Act) was imposed. As set out in [18], the offender had also previously been sentenced to imprisonment for reckless wounding and assault with intent to rob. Those offences were committed in January 2018. On 14 September 2019 (just two weeks before the murder of Mr Mulligan) the offender committed a further offence of having custody of a knife in a public place.
This criminal history must be considered and understood in the light of Ms Turnbull's personal history which is both tragic and shocking. I am satisfied that her history of trauma, dispossession, abandonment and deprivation explains how it is that Ms Turnbull comes to be where she is today.
A psychologist, Megan Godbee, and a psychiatrist, Dr Kerry Eagle provided expert reports. The offender and her sister, Karla Turnbull, gave evidence. I accept the evidence given by both women and the opinions expressed in the reports.
Ms Turnbull was born in Coonamble in central western New South Wales and is a member of the Kamilaroi people. Her father deserted the family when Ms Turnbull was about one year old and she had no contact with him for many years. It seems she had no father figure for most of her life and very little parental supervision. Ms Turnbull's mother began drinking heavily after her older sister was murdered by a man with whom she was in a domestic relationship. That tragedy occurred when Ms Turnbull was very young. She and her sister were often left to fend for themselves. They had to get themselves to school and had to try to feed themselves in their mother's absence. Sometimes they were looked after by members of their extended family. Sometimes they attended the riverbank where they would find their mother drinking with other associates and friends. Throughout their childhood, Ms Turnbull and her sister were exposed to many incidents of violence, including domestic violence. On one occasion, both sisters witnessed their mother being held up against a wall by her brother who was holding a knife against her throat.
From a very young age, the Ms Turnbull was sexually abused by her mother's brother. When she told her mother about this, her mother said she was "attention seeking" and slapped her. Both Ms Turnbull and Karla also gave evidence of being sexually abused by another member of the community when Ms Turnbull was 6, and her sister was 8 years of age. Each knew that the other was being abused but they were too frightened to tell anybody because the perpetrator told them that harm would come to the other sister if they complained. Their mother later had a domestic relationship with that same person.
Ms Turnbull's mother had other relationships; none of them free of violence, all of them apparently dysfunctional. The psychological and psychiatric impact of these domestic relationships on Ms Turnbull was part of the collateral damage. There was a time, which Ms Turnbull described as the happiest time of her life, when she stayed with relatives in South Australia. However, Ms Turnbull missed her family and she returned to western New South Wales. Again she lived with her mother and again she was exposed to ongoing and frequent bouts of domestic violence. At that time, her mother had taken up with a man who was a drug user. When he was short on drugs he became enraged and engaged in domestic violence. Ms Turnbull described seeing her mother "black and blue and blood everywhere". Her sister and Ms Turnbull would often "walk the streets, too scared to go home" in order to remove themselves from the violence.
There is independent evidence of the extent of Ms Turnbull's deprived and appalling childhood in the form of reports from the Department of Communities and Justice. A report dated March 2004 said the child was seeking assistance "with personal hygiene and extra food" and that accommodation had to be arranged at the local caravan park. The "Reporter" stated that:
"…the girls returned to the Youth Centre today and are very distressed and upset and stated that they have no supports or relatives who can take them in. S/C has not recontacted her mother, and has not eaten since yesterday lunchtime. S/C requires urgent assistance with accommodation and care".
Another report says:
"Sheree (sic) is aged 14 years and is vulnerable due to her age and that she is currently homeless. Sheree (sic) was living with her mother and grandmother and was told to leave the family home on 9/3/2004. Previous history indicates that there have been several earlier reports of the child running away from home and that she has been possibly using marijuana. Due to Sheree's (sic) current circumstances and lack of supports, urgent assessment is required to arrange accommodation and care for her to ensure that she is not at risk of further harm."
As this last report shows, Ms Turnbull resorted to drugs at a very young age. Her sister Karla, who I accepted as an insightful witness, said that "drug use was [her] way of escaping the pain and the heartache that she went through". That heartache included her almost constant exposure to domestic violence over many years as well as a particular tragedy that occurred when Ms Turnbull lost a child in childbirth. Ms Turnbull first became pregnant when she was just 14 years of age and gave birth to her first son in 2005. However, in 2007, when Ms Turnbull was pregnant with her second child, her pregnancy ended prematurely at 24 weeks and her son died very shortly after his birth. At that stage Ms Turnbull was 17 years old. In her evidence, Karla described the effect of her son's death on Ms Turnbull. Karla said her sister was "just lost, and the drug use got worse" following the death of her second child; "when she lost her son I lost my sister".
Since then Ms Turnbull has had six more children. Her oldest son is cared for by her sister. Her six other children are currently being cared for by family members of the father of the youngest three children. Because the children are located in western New South Wales and the offender has been on remand in Sydney, it seems that she has had little or no personal contact with any of her children for a long time. Ms Turnbull told the psychologist, and I accept, that this is a significant motivator for her to rehabilitate.
Ms Turnbull's adult relationships have also been marred by violence and abuse. Ms Turnbull and her sister provided the awful details of this. There were also a series of documents produced under subpoena by the police. These provided further insight into the nature and extent of the violence and chaos to which Ms Turnbull has been subjected over many years. An extract from a COPS entry dated 2 October 2015 provides but one example:
"The accused then approached the victim (Ms Turnbull) whilst she was still holding her 17 month old child and has punched the victim in the right eye with his fist. The accused has then placed his hands around the victim's throat still whilst the victim had hold of their 17 month old baby and began strangling the victim. The victim has broken free and the accused has repeatedly told the victim to 'Get the fuck out of my father's house'.
The accused went inside and came back out to the back door with a knife. The accused threatened the victim by saying several times, 'I am goin(sic) to slice your throat.'"
This was one of many reports in which the police recorded serious violent offending perpetrated on Ms Turnbull over many years. The expert evidence establishes that Ms Turnbull suffers from a significant post-traumatic stress disorder. I accept that Ms Turnbull's resort to drugs was a response to the traumatic events to which she was subjected and exposed as a little girl and in her adolescence, teenage years and abusive relationships she has been involved in as an adult. Dr Eagle provided an opinion that "it is not apparent on the information available whether [the offender] was experiencing psychotic symptoms at the time of the Index Offence, although it remains possible". That opinion is broadly consistent with the following findings by Ms Godbee (relating to the reckless wounding charge):
"It appears that Ms. Turnbull began to develop psychotic symptoms associated with her substance abuse, which have contributed to some of her prior violence. Although it is unclear what immediately precipitated her violence on the night of the index offence, it appears that ice use, associations with antisocial peers, a history of aggression in response to either paranoia or trauma-related triggers and distorted beliefs about violence as normal were contributing factors."
Although it is not clear whether Ms Turnbull was suffering from drug induced psychosis at the time of the event, I accept that psychotic symptoms observed earlier by police, associated with her substance abuse, paranoia and trauma contributed to the commission of the offence. I cannot take her self-induced intoxication into account as a mitigating feature. [7] However I can and do take into account the extraordinary history of abuse and trauma and the way in which it led her towards drug abuse and addiction. I accept that the history of abuse and trauma was causally connected to her offending and has an impact on an assessment of her moral culpability. [8] On the other hand, as the Prosecutor submitted, Ms Turnbull was aware that she was prone to become violent when affected by drugs. These matters are also relevant in considering Ms Turnbull's future dangerousness and the need to protect the community from such random and extreme acts of violence.
Ms Turnbull's psychiatric conditions (her PTSD, personality disorder, severe substance abuse disorder and substance-induced psychotic disorder) is relevant to sentencing in a number of ways. [9] As I have said, it reduces Ms Turnbull's moral culpability to some degree. While general deterrence must remain a significant factor, it will be given less weight in balancing the various objectives of punishment. Personal deterrence, too, is less significant both because of Ms Turnbull's psychiatric condition but also in view of her expressions of remorse and the length of the sentence that must be imposed. There is no clear evidence that her mental health issues will make her time in prison more onerous.
Ms Turnbull's history of profound deprivation and abuse is relevant to the sentencing exercise and I have accepted that it reduces her moral culpability. [10] However, in the present case, this issue is very closely associated with the psychiatric conditions to which I have just referred. It is important not to effectively count these factors twice or to allow the tragic history of the offender to overshadow the gravity of the crime she committed. However, the history of abuse and deprivation in this case is truly profound and shocking and it must be given significant weight in sentencing.
Ms Turnbull's conduct must be denounced; she must be held accountable for that conduct and subjected to adequate punishment. The harm she has done to the victim and his loved ones must be recognised. The community must be protected including by the imposition of a sentence that sends a strong message of deterrence. The community must know that crimes of murder will be met by severe gaol sentences.
However, the sentence must also foster Ms Turnbull's rehabilitation. I accept the Prosecutor's submission that any finding as to her prospects of rehabilitation must be guarded in view of her criminal history, the breach of parole and the chronic nature of her drug dependence and trauma related illness. She has also committed a number of offences whilst in prison on remand. Even so, her evidence demonstrated great insight and deep remorse. She has recently commenced a drug programme in gaol. If Ms Turnbull can remain drug free she has some reasonable prospects of rehabilitation.
Striking the balance is difficult in a case like this. I should record that the history of abuse and profound deprivation and its psychological consequences have had a significant impact on the sentence I intend to impose.
In her oral submissions, Ms Manuell SC referred to the lack of support and the failure of the system to intervene at critical stages in Ms Turnbull's life:
"There has been very little support given to the offender. So that by the age of 14 years or 15 when she has her first child she just returns to Gilgandra, even though she is underage, pregnant at 14 and without any resources provided to her at all. That has continued.
The Court provided or imposed conditions of conditional liberty, rehabilitation, those kinds of matters, counselling, drug rehabilitation. The alienation that the offender must have felt by that stage it was in many ways too little too late. She, of course, would have been a perfect candidate for the Walama Court, if such a court were available to her in Tamworth or in Gilgandra or Coonamble or even Dubbo. But there was never that intensive supervision from any government agency at a time when she needed it."
I accept these submissions. There appears to have been a failure in the system to intervene at critical stages of Ms Turnbull's life. Ms Turnbull is an abandoned and vulnerable Aboriginal offender who has appeared in the lower courts on many occasions. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that intensive and culturally appropriate intervention and supervision, of the kind that a focussed and dedicated court would have provided, may have assisted the offender during her most difficult times and broken the cycle of violence, abuse and offending.
Taking into account all relevant matters, a sentence of 24 years is appropriate. That sentence must be reduced by 25% (6 years) to reflect the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty. [11] Accordingly, the total sentence will be 18 years.
In the absence of a finding of special circumstances, that would result in a non-parole period of (not less than) 13 years and 6 months. However, I find that there are special circumstances justifying a relatively small adjustment to the proportion of the non-parole period to the head sentence. Those circumstances revolve around the need for a very lengthy period of parole to enable Ms Turnbull to re-integrate into the community. There will also be a degree of accumulation on the balance of parole being served for the reckless wounding and assault with intent to rob offences. Such an accumulation may also amount to special circumstances. The non-parole period will be 12 years and 6 months.
Ms Turnbull was arrested on 30 September 2019 and has been bail refused for this offence since that date. However her parole in relation to the reckless wounding charge was revoked and she remained in custody in relation to that offence until 14 August 2020. The parties agree that I have a discretion under the relevant legislation [12] to commence the sentence at any time between those two dates. I accept Ms Manuell's submission that there should be a degree of concurrency between the sentences and that I must take into account principles of totality. Equally, I accept the Prosecutor's submission that there must be a degree of accumulation. This is far from an exact science. The commencement date will be 1 January 2020.
Ms Turnbull, I now propose to impose sentence:
1. Sharee Lorraine Turnbull, for the murder of Jack Mulligan, you are sentenced to a non-parole period of 12 years and 6 months commencing on 1 January 2020 and expiring on 30 June 2032. There will be a balance term of parole of 5 years and 6 months commencing on 1 July 2032 and expiring on 31 December 2037.
2. Pursuant to s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) I am required to advise you of the existence of that Act and the fact that it applies to your case and to this offence.
Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29 at [95]; R v Sumpton (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 684 at [17]; R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273 at [102].
Sentencing Procedure Act, s 21A(2)(j).
Sentencing Procedure Act, s 21A(2)(d). See Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 477 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey JJ); [1988] HCA 14; Hoare v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348 at 354 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ); [1989] HCA 33; R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242 at [15] and [30] (Spigelman CJ).
Sentencing Procedure Act, s 21A(3)(b).
Sentencing Procedure Act, s 25D(2).
Sentencing Procedure Act, s 21A(5AA).
The causal connection is not necessary to come to this conclusion, but it exists in this case.
See, for example, R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 at [22]-[26] (Spigelman CJ) and Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 at 43-44; [2010] NSWCCA 194 at [177].
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37.
Sentencing Procedure Act, s 25D(2).
Sentencing Procedure Act, s 47.
[3]
Amendments
17 December 2020 - Typographical error in catchwords.
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: 17 December 2020