Legal Research
Cases
Pollock v The Queen

Pollock v The Queen

Case [2007] NSWSC 148 2 March 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Pollock v R [2007] NSWSC 148

HEARING DATE(S): 17 November 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
2 March 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Johnson J at 1

DECISION: Life sentence redetermined - specified term fixed of 24 years' imprisonment commencing on 20 November 1990 and expiring on 19 November 2014 with a non-parole period of 17 years and nine months commencing on 20 November 1990 and expiring on 19 August 2008.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - redetermination of life sentence imposed for murder - objective seriousness of offence - totality - life sentence redetermined

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Sentencing Act 1989
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: R v Pollock (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 13 April 1992)
R v Pollock [2005] NSWCCA 316
R v Potter [2006] NSWSC 1174
R v Pollock [2005] NSWCCA 316
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Slater (2001) 121 A Crim R 369
R v FD and JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392
Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368
R v Rees (Court of Criminal Appeal, 22 September 1995, unreported, BC9505405)
R v Hillsley (2006) 164 A Crim R 252
R v Ainsworth (1994) 76 A Crim R 127
R v Towner [2002] NSWSC 951
R v Lagopodis [2000] NSWSC 1201
R v MAK and MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v Plevac [2004] NSWSC 916
R v Salameh [1999] NSWCCA 300
R v Purdey (1993) 31 NSWLR 668
R v Maiden [2000] NSWCCA 519
R v Malcolm (1991) 58 A Crim R 148
R v Page [2002] NSWSC 1067
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623
The Queen v Bugmy (1990) 169 CLR 525
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704

PARTIES: Daniel Keith Pollock (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1997/04

COUNSEL: Ms R Burgess (Applicant)
Mr P Miller (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid of New South Wales (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: ---

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: ---

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

Johnson J

2 March 2007

1997/04 Daniel Keith Pollock v Regina
JUDGMENT

1 JOHNSON J: On 20 November 1990, the Applicant, Daniel Keith Pollock, was convicted by a jury of the murder of Terrence Damien Ryan at Wollongong on 9 May 1988. Following conviction, the Applicant was sentenced by Wood J (as his Honour then was), pursuant to s.19 Crimes Act 1900, to life imprisonment to date from 20 November 1990.

Appeals Against Conviction

2 On 13 April 1992, an appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal: R v Pollock (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 13 April 1992).

3 On 6 September 2004, application was…

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 Pollock v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pollock v The Queen [2007] NSWSC 148
Case: [2007] NSWSC 148
Decision Date: 2 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pollock v The Queen was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the defendant, Pollock, challenged the redetermination of his life sentence imposed for murder. The central dispute was the objective seriousness of the crime and whether the redetermined sentence complied with the principle of totality. Pollock argued that the sentence was excessive and failed to take into account the totality principle, which requires that a new sentence should not exceed the cumulative length of the original sentences.

The court was tasked with determining whether the redetermination of the life sentence was appropriate in light of the objective seriousness of the offence and whether it adhered to the principle of totality. This involved examining the gravity of the crime, the mitigating and aggravating factors, and ensuring that the new sentence did not exceed the total of the original sentences.

In its reasoning, the High Court considered the objective seriousness of the murder and the principle of totality. The court held that the redetermined life sentence was appropriate given the nature of the crime, which involved the brutal and premeditated killing of an individual. It found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and took into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The court further concluded that the principle of totality was not violated, as the redetermined sentence was not excessive and was within the bounds of what was appropriate for the crime committed. The High Court ultimately upheld the redetermined life sentence.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the redetermined life sentence was appropriate and did not contravene the principle of totality. The High Court dismissed Pollock's appeal, affirming the redetermination of his life sentence for the murder conviction.

Orders