R v J Shedden [2012] NSWSC 759

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v J Shedden [2012] NSWSC 759 Hearing dates: 17-18/04/2012 Decision date: 06 July 2012 Before: Fullerton J Decision: Imprisonment for 9 years comprised of a non-parole period of 6 years and 9 months to date from 7 July 2010 and to expire on 6 April 2017 with a balance of term of 2 years and 3 months to expire on 6 July 2019 Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act - joint criminal enterprise - planned offence - disregard for public safety - use of weapon - offence committed in company - parity - guilty plea Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: Ibrahim v R [2009] NSWCCA 15 Kauwenberghs v R (Cth) [2008] NSWCCA 98 R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38 R v Forbes [2011] NSWSC 1547 R v Taufahema [2007] HCA 11; 228 CLR 232 Wilson v R (1992) 174 CLR 313 Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown John Wayne Shedden (Offender) Representation: Counsel P Barnett SC (Crown) P Rosser QC (Offender) Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Armstrongs Solicitors (Offender) File Number(s): 2010/226908

REMARKS ON SENTENCE 1HER HONOUR: On 16 April 2012 the trial of the offender for the murder of Joshua Maynard at Raymond Terrace on 29 June 2010 was listed for trial. On 17 April 2012 he was arraigned on that charge to which he entered a plea of not guilty to murder but guilty of manslaughter. The Crown accepted that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. 2The Crown's willingness to accept a plea to manslaughter was first made known to the offender at the time of committal proceedings - an offer which remained current up to and including the date fixed for trial. Accordingly, the plea of guilty cannot attract the sentencing discount that would otherwise accompany an early plea. The Crown conceded however that the plea should attract a discount in the order of 10 per cent reflecting its utilitarian value which, together with the discount which the offender will be afforded for his past assistance to the authorities, will be productive of a reduction in sentence. The extent of the reduction for assistance will need to be expressly stated to comply with the operation of s 23 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (see R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38). In this case, additional factors bear upon the quantification of the discount for assistance, in particular the conditions of the offender's remand since his arrest (see Kauwenberghs v R (Cth) [2008] NSWCCA 98 at [99]-[103]).