Australia, Aug. 16 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 15:

1. Mark Charles Stanley ("the offender") was born in October 2002. He was 18 years old when Mr Paul Jacques ("the deceased") was shot and killed. On 8 May 2025, the offender pleaded guilty on indictment to the murder of Paul Jacques.

2. The offender is to be sentenced for one count of murder contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years' imprisonment. The basis of liability is constructive murder, arising out of a foundational offence contrary to ss 97(2)/344A of the Crimes Act, of attempted robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon. The foundational offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.

3. The offender entered his plea of guilty nearly two months before his trial was to commence on 2 July 2025. It is agreed, and I accept, that the offender is entitled to a 10% discount for the utilitarian value of his plea: s 25D(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ("CSPA").

4. A co-offender, Titan Gilkes, was sentenced by Hamill J on 7 February 2025 to a non-parole period of 9 years and 6 months with a balance of term of 4 years and 9 months: R v Titan Gilkes [2025] NSWSC 23. In determining the proportionate sentence, his Honour applied a discount of 25% to reflect the utilitarian value of Mr Gilkes' plea.

5. Although unintended, this was a senseless and tragic killing. The deceased's brother, Mr George Newman, has provided a victim impact statement in which he describes his brother as a real gentleman who had changed in so many ways for the better. The deceased is described as a "rough nut, but he wasn't a bad person". Mr Newman continues to live with the grief and loss of his brother.

6. I have taken into account the victim impact statement pursuant to s 30E(1) of the CSPA.

7. It is appropriate to commence these remarks by acknowledging the life lost. In matters such as this, judges are asked to perform an impossible equation. No human life can ever be equated with any penalty, including a period of imprisonment. No gaol term, of any length, can return a loved one. A life should never be measured simply by the punishment meted out to an offender.

8. The sentence I impose does not, and cannot, measure the value of Mr Jacques' life. Instead, it reflects the sentencing discretion informed by proper principle. It must reflect adequate punishment, deterrence, and denunciation, in addition to rehabilitation and protection of the community. It must hold the offender to account and reflect the objective seriousness of the offence. It must also reflect the offender's subjective case, his moral culpability, his prospects of rehabilitation, and the likelihood, or unlikelihood, of future offending.

9. The purposes of sentencing require that the offender be punished and held to account for his actions. He will be sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The offender's sentence to a term of full-time custody goes a long way to fulfilling those purposes. Punishment is not, however, the only purpose of sentencing.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/197f1ab729788c5382117b5d)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.