R v Haines; R v Lee [2016] NSWSC 1333

R v Haines; R v Lee [2016] NSWSC 1333

The offences were serious but below the mid-range of objective seriousness because the plan to rob arose shortly before entry, there was no proven intention to kill or inflict serious injury, and the violence escalated quickly and unexpectedly. Mr Lee's moral culpability for murder was greater because he carried and used the knife that killed Mr McNulty, whereas Mr Haines' liability for murder was derivative of his participation in the foundational robbery and contemplation that the knife might be brandished. Both offenders' guilty pleas warranted discounts, Mr Haines also receiving a small additional discount for his offer of assistance. Some accumulation was required because the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing / Remarks on Sentence Following Guilty Pleas to Murder and Armed Robbery With Wounding
Outcome
Both offenders were sentenced to imprisonment for armed robbery with wounding and murder, with Mr Lee receiving a longer sentence for murder than Mr Haines.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'constructive Murder' 'armed Robbery With Wounding' 'objective Seriousness' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'offers of Assistance' 'contrition and Remorse' 'rehabilitation Prospects' 'parity and Disparity' 'accumulation and Totality' 'deterrence' 'special Circumstances']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing / Remarks on Sentence Following Guilty Pleas to Murder and Armed Robbery With Wounding

  1. 1 ['What sentences should be imposed on Lloyd Edward Haines and Michael Lee for constructive murder and armed robbery with wounding.' 'Whether the offences fell below the mid-range of objective seriousness having regard to limited planning, absence of intent to kill or inflict serious injury, and the escalation of the robbery.' "Whether different sentences should be imposed to reflect the offenders' separate roles, including Mr Lee's use of the knife and Mr Haines' derivative liability for murder." "What discount should be allowed for each offender's guilty plea and, for Mr Haines, his offer of assistance to authorities." 'Whether the sentences for murder and armed robbery with wounding should be partially accumulated because there were separate victims and separate criminality.' 'Whether special circumstances justified varying the statutory parole to non-parole ratio.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were serious but below the mid-range of objective seriousness because the plan to rob arose shortly before entry, there was no proven intention to kill or inflict serious injury, and the violence escalated quickly and unexpectedly. Mr Lee's moral culpability for murder was greater because he carried and used the knife that killed Mr McNulty, whereas Mr Haines' liability for murder was derivative of his participation in the foundational robbery and contemplation that the knife might be brandished. Both offenders' guilty pleas warranted discounts, Mr Haines also receiving a small additional discount for his offer of assistance. Some accumulation was required because the...

Court Disposition

Both offenders were sentenced to imprisonment for armed robbery with wounding and murder, with Mr Lee receiving a longer sentence for murder than Mr Haines.

Orders

  • ['For the offence of armed robbery with wounding sentence Lloyd Edward Haines to a fixed term of imprisonment of 5 years commencing on 12 August 2014 expiring on 11 August 2019.' 'For the offence of murder sentence Lloyd Edward Haines to imprisonment for 14 years and 8 months consisting of a non-parole period of 11...