Australia, Aug. 13 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on July 14:

1. On 11 March or 12 March 2023, Roger James Kilby ("the offender"), murdered Andrew John Anthoney ("the deceased") by violently assaulting him in his own home. He handed himself into police the following day (or the same day) and was charged with murder.

2. On 21 February 2025, at Parkes Local Court, the offender was committed for sentence to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, following a plea of guilty.

3. Mr Kilby must now be sentenced for murder, an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ("Crimes Act"). The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (s 19A of the Crimes Act), with a standard non-parole period of 20 years' imprisonment: see item 1 of the table at s 54D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ("CSPA").

4. There is no dispute that the offender is entitled to a 25% reduction in his sentence pursuant to s 25D(2)(a) of the CSPA, to reflect the utilitarian value of the plea.

5. The violent death of Mr Anthoney has been extremely distressing and traumatising for his family. A victim impact statement has been read by Katrina Anthoney, representing the family. The deceased is described as a son, brother, cousin, uncle, nephew, and friend. The experience has been a shattering one for those left behind. I have had regard to the victim impact statement: s 30E(1) of the CSPA.

6. 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.

7. The sentence I impose does not, and cannot, measure the value of Mr Anthoney's 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.

8. 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. The offender will have to live with the burden of the consequences of his actions for the rest of his life. In many ways, that burden, far more than imprisonment, will be the offender's punishment.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19805db47b02e4ec5bc669e1)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.