Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South ... - NSW Caselaw

Judgment Summary Supreme Court New South Wales

R v Maybir (No 8) [2016] NSWSC 30 R A Hulme J

Today the Supreme Court sentenced Kodi James Maybir for the murder of his girlfriend’s seven-year-old son. Mr Maybir either pleaded guilty or was found guilty by a jury of ten additional offences relating to the mistreatment of the deceased in the months leading up to his death, including offences related to the production of child abuse material and a number of assaults. R A Hulme J indicated a sentence of 38 years for the murder before imposing an aggregate sentence of 42 years with a non-parole period of 31 years 6 months. Mr Maybir exhibited extreme religious views and parenting philosophies. He imposed cruel physical punishments upon the three children of his girlfriend, Ms Kayla James. The deceased received the harshest treatment as a result of frustration over his behavioural manifestations of an intellectual disability. On separate occasions, My Maybir incited the deceased to insert his finger into his brother’s anus and incited the deceased to be assaulted by his siblings, while video recording each incident. During a family holiday Mr Maybir in separate incidents punched the deceased; struck him with a wooden spatula; struck him with a stick; and pinned him down while Ms James repeatedly struck him with a piece of skirting board. On the morning of 20 May 2013 Ms James heard a thud before Mr Maybir entered the room holding the deceased, who was unconscious. His condition deteriorated throughout the day and medical attention was not sought until early the following morning when Ms James woke to find him dead. The cause of death was a fractured skull with an underlying subdural haemorrhage caused by blunt force trauma. A separate hairline fracture to the skull was consistent with a forceful gripping of the face. The precise manner in which those injuries occurred remains unknown to all except for Mr Maybir, who has offered by way of explanation outrageous and transparent lies aimed at minimising his own liability. Ms James had already been sentenced in the Supreme Court for her involvement. Notably, she was convicted of manslaughter as opposed to murder. Taking into account a number of favourable subjective features and her considerable manipulation by and subjugation to Mr Maybir, Harrison J sentenced her to an aggregate term of 14 years with a non-parole period of 10 years 6 months.

This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.

Other than guilty pleas to some offences – merely representing Mr Maybir’s acceptance of the inevitable rather than any genuine expression of remorse – there was little in the way of subjective features calling for mitigation of penalty. His prior good character was given extremely modest weight due to the sustained and serious nature of the offending. There was no suggestion that he was unlikely to reoffend. He has a criminal history involving contraventions of an apprehended domestic violence order, for which he was placed on good behaviour bonds, one of which was operative at the time of a number of the offences against the deceased. R A Hulme J assessed the offences as ranging from falling on the lower end of the scale of seriousness to “very serious examples of their type”. The murder of a child under the age of 18 carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 25 years. While this murder was a crime of great heinousness, it is not at the extremity that would justify a life sentence because there was no planning or premeditation and there was insufficient evidence to establish an intention to kill as opposed to an intention to inflict really serious bodily harm. Personal deterrence and the protection of the community were of particular significance in this sentencing exercise having regard to Mr Maybir remaining completely unrepentant with no acknowledgement of the enormity of his inhumane conduct.

This summary has been prepared for general information only. It is not intended to be a substitute for the judgment of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s judgment.