Citation: R v Staff [2024] NSWSC 1471
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 November 2024
Judge(s): Lonergan J
Background
The offender, Stephen Staff, was one of three men who travelled in convoy to the home of Matthew Davis at Lake Illawarra on the night of 21 August 2021. Mr Davis was a young man living alone who had no prior connection to the men who came to his door. He was found dead from a combination of head injuries and neck compression.
The offender was tried before a jury on a charge of murder. After five days of evidence, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The verdict was consistent with a finding that the plan was to assault Mr Davis, not to kill him or cause him grievous bodily harm, and that his death was the unintended consequence of that assault.
The sentencing hearing proceeded on the basis that the offender was a party to a joint criminal enterprise to assault Mr Davis. Under that legal framework, he was liable for the acts of his co-offenders that brought about the death, regardless of whether he personally delivered any blow or caused the neck compression.
Legal Issues
- What factual findings could be made about the offender's role in the joint criminal enterprise, consistently with the jury's verdict of manslaughter?
- How should the offender's moral culpability be assessed, including the weight to be given to his failure to assist the deceased?
- What was the appropriate sentence, taking into account objective seriousness, subjective circumstances, remorse (or its absence), deterrence, and the offender's medical conditions?
- Whether special circumstances existed justifying a departure from the standard ratio between the non-parole period and the total sentence.
Decision
Lonergan J found that the offender knew one of the other men would "bash people for money" and that an assault on Mr Davis was plainly part of the plan. The judge rejected the offender's attempts, made in recorded gaol calls, to portray his role as merely pointing out the house without knowing why the others wanted to go there. Her Honour found those calls were deliberate attempts to introduce exculpatory accounts into the record while the offender knew he was being recorded, and described the versions as contradictory and self-serving.
A central aggravating feature was the offender's decision to leave Mr Davis on the floor, either dead or in the process of dying, without rendering any assistance. Lonergan J described this as an "appalling exhibition of callousness and cowardice." The judge also noted that the offender was seen on CCTV leaving the scene carrying a white plastic bag apparently containing items of some weight, though no finding was made as to whether those items were taken from the deceased's home.
On subjective circumstances, Lonergan J accepted that the offender had a history of a failing personal relationship, had made a prior suicide attempt, and was experiencing depressive symptoms. However, the court found those matters did not explain his decision to participate in the attack. The judge expressed doubt about whether genuine remorse had been shown, noting that the offender continued to minimise his role even in his letter to the court.
Special circumstances were found to exist, principally because of the offender's significant coronary artery disease and lower back problems, which would make custody more onerous. A 25% discount was applied to the sentence as required by law, and the final sentence reflected both general and specific deterrence, the significant criminality involved, and the need for meaningful supervised parole.
Orders Made
- The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months for the manslaughter of Matthew Davis on 21 August 2021.
- The sentence was backdated to commence on 18 May 2022 (the date of arrest).
- The non-parole period was set to expire on 17 August 2026.
- The court notified the offender that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) may apply to him and directed his legal representatives to explain the possible application of that Act.
Key Takeaways
- A manslaughter conviction on the basis of joint criminal enterprise does not require proof that the offender personally struck the blow that caused death; participation in a plan to assault the deceased is sufficient to establish liability for the fatal outcome.
- Where an offender makes deliberately shaped statements in recorded custodial telephone calls, the sentencing court may treat those statements as attempts to manufacture a favourable record rather than as reliable evidence of the offender's true role.
- A callous and deliberate failure to render assistance to a dying victim is a significant aggravating feature that bears directly on an offender's moral culpability, even where the death itself was unintended.
- Continued minimisation of involvement, including in correspondence to the court, can undermine a finding of genuine remorse and will be taken into account at sentencing.
- Special circumstances justifying an adjusted parole ratio may be established by evidence of serious medical conditions that make the offender's time in custody more onerous than it would otherwise be.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases
- The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 (standard of proof for facts adverse to the offender at sentencing)
- Kukovec v R [2014] NSWCCA 308