R v Smit, Smit and Tarrant [2005] NSWSC 1277

R v Smit, Smit and Tarrant [2005] NSWSC 1277

The offenders were guilty of murder as parties to a joint criminal enterprise to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, but the Court could not determine beyond reasonable doubt who struck the fatal blow or that any offender played a substantially greater role. The killing was spontaneous, unplanned, brutal and callous, committed in company, and involved substantial violence and a short-lived attempt to conceal the offence. Although each offender had good prospects of rehabilitation and the subjective cases were more favourable than at the first sentencing, parity and the objective gravity of the offence warranted the same head sentence and non-parole period for each offender, with no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Sentence for Murder / Resentencing After Successful Appeal Against Conviction and Retrial
Outcome
Each offender was convicted of murder and sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'resentencing After Successful Appeal and Retrial' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'resentencing After Successful Appeal and Retrial' 'non Parole Period' '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

Sentence for Murder / Resentencing After Successful Appeal Against Conviction and Retrial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences and non-parole periods should be imposed on each offender for murder after a successful appeal and retrial.' 'Whether the offenders should receive sentences longer, equal to, or shorter than those imposed after the first trial.' 'Whether the subjective circumstances of each offender justified a lesser sentence.' 'Whether there were special circumstances justifying a variation from the usual statutory proportion between sentence and non-parole period.' 'Whether parity required the same sentence and non-parole period for each offender.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offenders were guilty of murder as parties to a joint criminal enterprise to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm, but the Court could not determine beyond reasonable doubt who struck the fatal blow or that any offender played a substantially greater role. The killing was spontaneous, unplanned, brutal and callous, committed in company, and involved substantial violence and a short-lived attempt to conceal the offence. Although each offender had good prospects of rehabilitation and the subjective cases were more favourable than at the first sentencing, parity and the objective gravity of the offence warranted the same head sentence and non-parole period for each offender, with no...

Court Disposition

Each offender was convicted of murder and sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years.

Orders

  • ['Steven Charles Smit is convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for 16 years dating from 25 November 2001 and expiring on 24 November 2017, with a non-parole period of 12 years dating from 25 November 2001 and expiring on 24 November 2013.' 'Shiree Anne Smit is convicted of murder and sentenced to...