Short sentences stand over teen's 'mindless' killing

Note the crap reasoning shown by the highlighted passages. The case should now go to a higher court.

Despite public outrage, two-to-five-year jail terms for four youths who fatally bashed a teenager in a cowardly act of "mindless stupidity" won't be increased. The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the Crown, saying the NSW Supreme Court sentencing judge had little practical scope for higher penalties given the manslaughter plea and the fact they were juveniles.

Aged 16 and 17 at the time, the four attacked Kurt Smith, 19, and his friend Sean Clifford, then 19, as they walked across an oval in Emu Plains towards a party on New Year's Eve in 2002. Mr Smith suffered fatal head injuries after his head slammed into a telegraph pole.

One of the offenders could be released as early as next month after serving a minimum of two years. The worst offender was sentenced to five years and nine months, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months - he could be out next year due to time already served. They were originally charged with murder but later pleaded guilty to manslaughter, which carries a maximum of 25 years.

The sentences, handed down in April, outraged victims of crime. Justice Greg James had said in sentencing them that "the attack on the deceased was brutal ... and cowardly. There seems no basis on which one can conclude that the attack was in any way provoked".

The Court of Criminal Appeal Justices Peter McClellan, Carolyn Simpson and Roderick Howie said: "The act of violence which occurred on this evening has no doubt justifiably provoked a sense of outrage in many people." "The deceased, an innocent victim of mindless stupidity, lost his life. But as we have attempted to make clear, the sentence imposed upon each respondent had to reflect the particular act or acts relied upon as the basis of the offence of manslaughter and the culpability for the death of the deceased arising from the act or acts of that respondent."

The Crown had argued that the sentences were manifestly inadequate, and Justice James had given too much weight to their youth, immaturity and prospects of rehabilitation. But the Court of Criminal Appeal udgement said that the Crown's acceptance of the boys' manslaughter plea was on the understanding that they had not acted together to kill and rob Mr Smith. "This was a highly significant concession that the judge had to accept and act upon notwithstanding that on the face of it such a finding appears to be highly contrived and contrary to a common sense view of the facts leading to the killing. But it must be clearly understood that this was an unavoidable consequence of the Crown accepting the pleas of guilty to manslaughter," the judgement said.

Another significant concession by the Crown - allowing them to serve their terms in a juvenile detention centre - had "considerable ramifications" for the appeal. This concession, it said, had the "practical effect of confining, to a very substantial degree, the discretion otherwise available to the judge in determining the sentences to be imposed."

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)