R v Taber & Styman [2005] NSWSC 1292

R v Taber & Styman [2005] NSWSC 1292

Both accused were found to have jointly committed aggravated robbery and involuntary manslaughter by binding, gagging and abandoning the victim in circumstances which were unlawful, dangerous, and exhibited criminal negligence. Their actions demonstrated callous disregard for the victim and involved substantial planning. The 000 call did not absolve the offenders of responsibility. Sentences were imposed reflecting the gravity of the crimes, with substantial but not complete concurrency to avoid double punishment for common elements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
convicted and sentenced
Legal Topics
['manslaughter' 'aggravated Robbery' 'sentencing' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'criminal Negligence']
['criminal Law'] ['manslaughter' 'aggravated Robbery' 'sentencing' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'criminal Negligence']

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences are appropriate for manslaughter and aggravated robbery committed by the accused?' 'Is a high level of planning or aggravation present in the crimes?' 'Should the making of the 000 call affect liability or break the chain of causation?' 'Do relevant sentencing principles (concurrence, totality, double punishment) apply in this instance?']

Ratio Decidendi

Both accused were found to have jointly committed aggravated robbery and involuntary manslaughter by binding, gagging and abandoning the victim in circumstances which were unlawful, dangerous, and exhibited criminal negligence. Their actions demonstrated callous disregard for the victim and involved substantial planning. The 000 call did not absolve the offenders of responsibility. Sentences were imposed reflecting the gravity of the crimes, with substantial but not complete concurrency to avoid double punishment for common elements.

Court Disposition

convicted and sentenced

Orders

  • ['Peter Taber: aggravated robbery—10 years imprisonment (from 26 March 2001); manslaughter—18 years imprisonment (from 26 March 2002 to 25 March 2020), non-parole 13 years 6 months (from 26 March 2002 to 25 September 2015), eligible for parole from 25 September 2015.' 'Ian Styman: aggravated robbery—10 years...