Boyd v R (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 863

Boyd v R (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 863

The Applicant's offences were in the worst category of murder cases and heinous in the extreme, involving repeated homicidal offending over seven months and sexual sadism in the attacks on the female victims. His culpability was very high, no substantial mitigating feature reduced his moral culpability, and the psychiatric evidence showed a continuing lack of insight that made any risk assessment extremely guarded. Despite his age and lengthy custody, the need for community safety and the gravity, culpability and heinousness of the offences justified refusing to set specified terms or non-parole periods.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Determination of Five Existing Life Sentences / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['determination of Life Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'murder' 'wounding With Intent to Murder' 'worst Category Offences' 'heinousness' 'sexual Sadism' 'community Safety' 'risk Assessment' 'victim Impact Statements']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['determination of Life Sentences' 'non Parole Period' 'murder' 'wounding With Intent to Murder' 'worst Category Offences' 'heinousness' 'sexual Sadism' 'community Safety' 'risk Assessment' 'victim Impact Statements']

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

Application for Determination of Five Existing Life Sentences / Principal Judgment After Final Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should set specified terms and/or non-parole periods for the Applicant's five existing life sentences." "Whether the circumstances of the offences, the Applicant's culpability and the heinousness of the offences justified leaving the life sentences undetermined." "Whether the Applicant's age, time in custody, rehabilitation, background and risk evidence supported determination of the life sentences." 'Whether the need to preserve the safety of the community weighed against setting a non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant's offences were in the worst category of murder cases and heinous in the extreme, involving repeated homicidal offending over seven months and sexual sadism in the attacks on the female victims. His culpability was very high, no substantial mitigating feature reduced his moral culpability, and the psychiatric evidence showed a continuing lack of insight that made any risk assessment extremely guarded. Despite his age and lengthy custody, the need for community safety and the gravity, culpability and heinousness of the offences justified refusing to set specified terms or non-parole periods.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The Court declines to set a specified term for the sentences.' 'The Court declines to set a non-parole period for the sentences of life imprisonment.' "The application to determine the Applicant's life sentences is refused."]