Bunce v Regina - [2009] NSWCCA 281

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Bunce v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 281
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 9 November 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 November 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Howie J at 2; Hislop J at 23

DECISION: 1. The application for leave is granted;
2. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against sentence - murder - whether applicant sentenced on wrong factual basis

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

PARTIES: Gareth BUNCE (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/3466

COUNSEL: In person (Applicant)
D M L Woodburne SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: In person (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1215/07

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Price J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 11 May 2007

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Regina v Bunce [2007] NSWSC 469

2006/3466

ALLSOP P
HOWIE J
HISLOP J
27 November 2009

Gareth BUNCE v REGINA

Judgment

1 ALLSOP P: I agree with Howie J.

2 HOWIE J: On 11 May 2007 Price J sentenced the applicant for an offence of murder to a term of imprisonment of 24 years dating from 23 May 2005 with a non-parole period of 18 years. The applicant is eligible for release to parole on 22 May 2023: see [2007] NSWSC 469. On 10 February 2009 the applicant sought leave to appeal from that sentence and the Registrar granted an extension of time. The applicant was unrepresented on the hearing of the application.

3 It is unnecessary to restate in detail the facts upon which the Judge sentenced the applicant as they are very fully set out in his Honour’s sentencing remarks that have been published and are readily available on the Court’s website. On 18 March 1997 the applicant murdered the deceased, the stepsister of his wife. The applicant pleaded guilty to the murder on 16 March 2007 before Barr J, that is 10 years, almost to the day, after the killing. There was for a short period some question about the integrity of the plea of guilty as the applicant made the plea unexpectedly when he was arraigned without the legal representative who had carriage of the matter being present. However, a short time later the plea was confirmed and he was sentenced on the basis of the plea on arraignment.

4 The history of the matter is unusual. The applicant was initially charged with the murder on 29 December 1999 and remanded in custody. But he was released on 28 September 2000 when the Director of Public Prosecutions determined not to proceed further. On 12 September 2005 the applicant made contact with a journalist for a television programme, A Current Affair, and at a meeting between the two on 20 September 2005 confessed to the killing. The two travelled to Brisbane with another journalist from the programme and a conversation between them on 21 September…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bunce v Regina

Details

AGLC: Bunce v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 281
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 281
Decision Date: 27 November 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in the appeal were Bunce, the applicant, and the Crown, represented by Regina. The case involved an appeal against the applicant's sentence for murder, with the central issue being whether the sentence was imposed on an incorrect factual basis. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which holds appellate jurisdiction in criminal cases involving significant legal questions.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the trial judge's assessment of the evidence led to a conclusion that the applicant's actions were based on an incorrect understanding of the facts. Specifically, the court had to determine if the trial judge erred in applying the principles of sentencing to the facts as they were found. The applicant argued that the trial judge's findings on the factual basis were flawed, thereby necessitating a reconsideration of the sentence imposed.

In its judgment, the court examined the evidence and the trial judge's application of sentencing principles. The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in assessing the evidence and concluded that the sentence was appropriately imposed based on the facts found. The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the relevant principles to the facts as they were determined, and there was no basis to conclude that the applicant's sentence was on the wrong factual basis.

The final orders of the court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, confirming that the applicant's appeal against sentence was without merit. The court's decision reaffirmed the importance of the trial judge's role in assessing the evidence and applying sentencing principles to ensure justice is served.

Orders