R v Alexander - [1999] NSWSC 413

Reported Decision: [1999] 107 A Crim R 449

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v M J Alexander [1999] NSWSC 413

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal Division

FILE NUMBER(S): L00008/93

HEARING DATE(S): 26 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 May 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Michael John Alexander

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

COUNSEL : C Maxwell QC (Cr)
J Stratton (Appl)

SOLICITORS: P Thompson - DPP
Brenda Duchen

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEEDURE; Life Redetermination; Worst case

ACTS CITED: Sentencing Act 1989
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Petroff (Hunt CJ at CL, unreported, 12/11/91)
R v Twala (CCA, unreported, 4/11/94)
R v Garforth (CCA, unreported, 23/5/94)
R v Davies (1978) 68 Cr App R 319
R v McCafferty (Wood J, unreported, 15/10/91)
R v Potter (Studdert J, unreported, 28/10/91)
R v Hitchins (Grove J, unreported, 3/6/93)
R v Fenech (Barr J, unreported, 4/9/97)

DECISION: See paras 65, 66, 67

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

KIRBY J

Friday 7 May 1999

L00008/93 - REGINA v Michael John ALEXANDER

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 14 September 1993 the prisoner, Michael John Alexander, made application under s 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989. He sought a redetermination of the two life sentences imposed by Slattery J on 28 July 1987. The sentences were imposed after a jury had found Mr Alexander guilty of the murders of Mrs Susan Kirk, and her three year old daughter, Stephanie.

The Circumstances of the Crime

2 The applicant was born on 25 March 1961. Mrs Kirk and her daughter were murdered on Tuesday 20 August 1985. The applicant was then twenty four years old.
3 Mr Alexander came to Sydney from the country. Through a church organisation, he was introduced in February 1985 to Mrs Kirk. She was then a woman aged forty two years. She had recently separated from her husband, and had the custody of her daughter, Stephanie, aged three years.
4 Mr Alexander reached an arrangement with Mrs Kirk whereby they would share premises, and the rent. On 20 August 1985, there was an argument between Mr Alexander and Mrs Kirk concerning the rent, which was then in arrears. Mr Alexander then went to the garage. He obtained a length of electrical cord. He returned to the kitchen. He approached Mrs Kirk from behind, and placed the cord around her neck, pulling it tight. He thereby strangled her.
5 Having done that, the applicant then carried or dragged the body to the garage. He was in the process of covering the body with a curtain when Stephanie, the three year old daughter, entered the garage. He struck her with a piece of wood. He also stabbed her, and stabbed Mrs Kirk.
6 A post mortem examination of Mrs Kirk identified strangulation as the primary cause of death, and a knife wound to the lung and the aorta as secondary causes.
7 The post mortem in respect of Stephanie revealed that she had…

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 R v Alexander

Details

AGLC: R v Alexander [1999] NSWSC 413
Case: [1999] NSWSC 413
Decision Date: 7 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Alexander was heard. The respondent, Alexander, appealed against his life sentence, arguing that it was unjust and disproportionate. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and whether there were any legal errors in the original sentencing. The primary issues before the court were the adequacy of the reasoning behind the life sentence, and whether the original sentence was proportionate to the crime committed.

The court examined the sentencing principles outlined in the Sentencing Act, focusing on the need to ensure justice for both the offender and the victim. The judge considered the gravity of the crime, Alexander's criminal history, and the impact on the victim's family. The court assessed whether the original sentencing judge had correctly applied the law and exercised his or her discretion appropriately. After a thorough review of the evidence and legal arguments presented, the court concluded that the life sentence was proportionate and appropriate given the nature of the crime and the circumstances.

The Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the original sentence, finding no legal errors in the sentencing process. The court held that the sentence was justified based on the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect the community. The appeal was dismissed, and the life sentence for Alexander was confirmed. The decision emphasised the importance of adhering to sentencing principles and ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the crimes committed.

Orders