AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
5
Supreme Court 6 February 2024

R v BL

[2024] NSWSC 51

Homicide

Citation: R v BL [2024] NSWSC 51
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 February 2024
Judge: R A Hulme AJ

Background

The offender, identified as BL, was a 15-year-old at the time he participated in the murder of 16-year-old Jason Galleghan at Doonside on 4 August 2021. The deceased was lured to a residential address under false pretences by a group that wrongly suspected him of stealing a pair of Apple AirPods. A plan was hatched to assault him, and a number of adults and juveniles were present at the house when the deceased arrived.

The deceased was subjected to a prolonged and brutal attack. An adult co-offender, Richard Sione, carried out the initial assault over approximately 11 minutes. After Sione left, BL joined other juvenile co-offenders in continuing the assault for more than 20 minutes. BL was observed stomping on the deceased's chest. The attack was recorded on video, and footage was subsequently posted to Instagram. The deceased was left without any assistance; by the time emergency services arrived, he was unconscious and not breathing.

BL had pleaded guilty to murder. His case came before the Supreme Court for sentencing, following the earlier sentencing of juvenile co-offender BE in August 2023 (R v BE [2023] NSWSC 1007). Parity between the two sentences was a significant consideration.

  • What sentence was appropriate for a juvenile offender convicted of murder, having regard to the extreme objective seriousness of the offence?
  • How should the offender's age, background, reduced moral culpability, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation affect the sentence?
  • Were there special circumstances justifying a departure from the standard ratio between non-parole period and head sentence under s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)?
  • Was the sentence consistent with parity principles, given the comparable sentence imposed on co-offender BE?

Decision

The court characterised the murder as an offence of great seriousness. The deceased was lured to his death, subjected to a sustained and savage group beating, stripped of his clothing, and left without any attempt at assistance. The recording and posting of the assault on social media added a further degrading dimension to the conduct.

Despite the gravity of the offence, the court accepted that BL's moral culpability was reduced by his youth, immaturity, and personal background. The court had regard to expert psychological evidence from Dr Susan Pulman and Juvenile Justice reports. BL was assessed as remorseful and as having reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. His plea of guilty was taken into account in his favour.

The court found special circumstances warranting an extended balance of the sentence beyond the standard ratio. This was to allow greater flexibility during the parole period as BL matures and continues to develop. Standard non-parole periods do not apply where the offender is a child.

On parity, the Crown submitted that BL and BE were in very similar positions with respect to objective seriousness, moral culpability, and their subjective cases. The court accepted that submission without objection from the defence, and the sentence imposed on BL reflects that parity.

Orders Made

  • BL convicted of murder.
  • Sentenced to a total term of 15 years and 6 months imprisonment, comprising a non-parole period of 10 years and a balance of term of 5 years and 6 months.
  • Sentence backdated to 4 August 2021 (date of arrest); earliest release on parole 3 August 2031; total sentence expiring 3 February 2037.
  • BL to serve his sentence as a juvenile offender until he attains the age of 21.
  • Copies of Dr Susan Pulman's reports to accompany the warrant.

Key Takeaways

  • Murder committed by a juvenile offender is a "serious children's indictable offence" under the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) and must be dealt with according to law, not under the more protective provisions of Part 3, Division 4 of that Act.
  • Standard non-parole periods do not apply where the offender is a child, but the maximum penalty of life imprisonment remains available.
  • Reduced moral culpability arising from youth and immaturity is a recognised sentencing consideration, even where the objective circumstances of the offence are extremely serious.
  • Special circumstances justifying an extended balance of term can be found where a juvenile offender will require structured supervision and support through parole as they mature.
  • Where co-offenders are juveniles tried separately but their objective conduct, moral culpability, and subjective cases are assessed as substantially similar, parity principles will tend to produce comparable sentences.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), ss 3(1), 6, 15E, 17, 19(1), Part 3 Division 4
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44(2)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)

Cases:
- R v BE [2023] NSWSC 1007
- KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
- R v SLD [2002] NSWSC 758
- R v SLD (2003) 58 NSWLR 589; [2003] NSWCCA 310