Citation: Regina v Kanaan [2001] NSWSC 959
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Criminal Division)
Date: 31 October 2001
Judge: Greg James J
Background
The offender, aged 26 at the time of sentencing, was convicted by jury of two counts of murder and one count of malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The offences occurred on 17 July 1998 at Five Dock, when the offender shot and killed Adam Wright and Michael Hurle, and wounded Ronald Singleton. Both deceased died the following day despite medical intervention.
The circumstances arose from a street altercation outside a hotel. A witness in a car with the offender made a remark to two men involved in a fight, prompting one of them, Mr Singleton, to approach the car. The offender then left the vehicle and carried out the shootings. Each killing involved a shot fired at close range to the central part of the victim's body, and the court found each was inflicted with a deliberately formed intent to kill, carried out with what the judge described as appalling ruthlessness.
The offender had a limited prior criminal record, including a common assault conviction in 1997 and earlier matters resolved without conviction. The Crown submitted that the gravity of the murders warranted life sentences with no possibility of parole. Extensive written submissions, victim impact statements, and evidence of the offender's background were placed before the court.
Legal Issues
- Whether the murders fell within the "worst class of case" warranting the maximum sentence of life imprisonment under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
- What weight, if any, should be given to the offender's comparative youth when considering a whole-of-life sentence
- Whether subjective circumstances, including prospects of rehabilitation, could mitigate against the imposition of life imprisonment
- How victim impact statements should be treated in the determination of the appropriate sentence
- Whether a non-parole period should be set for the malicious wounding offence
Decision
Greg James J sentenced the offender to life imprisonment for each murder, finding that the multiplicity of the offences, the deliberate and ruthless nature of each killing, and the offender's total culpability across all three offences placed the case within the category requiring the maximum sentence. The court rejected the submission that the crimes were insufficiently heinous simply because other cases involved contract killings or prolonged torture, holding that the callous disregard for human life displayed here was itself a sufficient marker of extreme culpability.
On the question of youth, the court acknowledged that the offender's age was a relevant consideration but held, consistently with the Court of Criminal Appeal's reasoning in Harris, that youth is not a decisive factor where the nature of the offending and the absence of prospects for avoiding recidivism require permanent community protection. The court expressed regret that the statutory framework for life sentences offered no future mechanism to reassess the offender's prospects for release, but concluded that the evidence as it then stood left no alternative.
Victim impact statements from the families of both deceased were received as required by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, but the court noted the principle established in Previtera that such statements generally should not be used to determine the quantum of punishment, to avoid any implication that different lives carry different value. The court acknowledged the grief of the families without using the statements to aggravate sentence.
For the malicious wounding offence, the court imposed the maximum term of 25 years, to be served concurrently with the life sentences. A non-parole period was declined across all offences, given both the life sentences and the nature of the wounding.
Orders Made
- Life imprisonment for each of the two counts of murder
- 25 years imprisonment for malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
- All sentences to be served concurrently
- Sentences taken to have commenced on 17 September 1999
- No non-parole period set for any offence
Key Takeaways
- Life imprisonment without a non-parole period may be appropriate for multiple murders even where the offender is comparatively young, if the culpability of the conduct and the risk of recidivism warrant permanent community protection.
- The Court confirmed, following Harris, that the statutory criterion for imposing life sentences under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 does not operate more or less stringently depending on the offender's age.
- A sentence will not be disqualified from the "worst class of case" category merely because other murder cases have involved additional aggravating features such as contract killing or extended torture; callous and ruthless multiple killings may themselves satisfy the threshold.
- Under the principle in Previtera, victim impact statements should generally not influence the quantum of punishment, so as to avoid any suggestion that some victims' lives carry greater value than others.
- Prospects of rehabilitation, while not irrelevant, are not determinative where present evidence establishes that community protection requires a whole-of-life sentence; the court noted with regret the absence of any statutory mechanism to reassess the position at a later date.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 26, 28(3), 28(4)(b), 61(1)
Cases
- Regina v Garforth (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 23 May 1994)
- Regina v Petroff (Hunt CJ at CL, unreported, 12 November 1991)
- Regina v Baker (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 20 September 1995)
- Regina v Rose [1999] NSWCCA 327
- Regina v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469
- Regina v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
- Veen (No 2) (1987-88) 164 CLR 465
- Regina v Qutami [2000] NSWCCA 353
- Regina v Barac [1999] NSWSC 61
- Regina v Twala (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 4 November 1994)
- Regina v Petrinovic [1999] NSWSC 1131