Barbour v the Queen

The appellant, Barbour, was convicted of one count of murder and one count of theft. He was granted parole for a prior armed robbery offence at the time of the current offences. Barbour entered a guilty plea for both charges. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in concluding that the appellant intended to steal and then murder when he entered the premises. The appeal was about the sentence imposed, specifically whether the length of the non-parole period was appropriate.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge had made an error in concluding that the appellant intended to commit theft followed by murder. The court found that the sentencing judge had erred in this regard and concluded that the appellant's intention was to commit theft, not murder. The court found that the intention to commit murder was not formed until after the theft had commenced. The court noted that the appellant's prior convictions and the nature of the offences committed while on parole were relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court also noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty, which is a mitigating factor.

The court allowed the appeal and granted leave to appeal. The appellant was re-sentenced to a total effective sentence of 20 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years. The court found that the original sentence was too severe given the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the appellant's guilty plea was a mitigating factor that should have been given more weight by the sentencing judge. The court found that the appellant's intention to commit theft, not murder, should have been taken into account when determining the sentence.