R v Amos - [2012] NSWSC 1021

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v AMOS [2012] NSWSC 1021
Hearing dates: 20 July 2012
Decision date: 31 August 2012
Before: Hall J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 years to commence on 3 February 2010 and to expire on 2 February 2031 and a balance of term of seven years to commence on 3 February 2031 and expire on 2 February 2038.
The earliest date of eligibility for release to parole is 2 February 2031.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - offender found guilty of murder after trial - whether offence part of planned or organised criminal activity within s 21A(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - No evidence of a premeditated intention to kill as part of a joint criminal enterprise - offence committed for financial gain within s 21A(2)(o) - offence committed in home of victim within s 21A(2)(eb).
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Adanguidi v R [2006] NSWCCA 404, 167 A Crim R 295
Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Burrell v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 65
Crown v Garfoth (23 May 1994, NSWCCA, unreported)
Madden v R [2011] NSWCCA 254
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v AEM & Ors [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Shepherd [2006] NSWSC 799
R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 202
R v White [2005] NSWSC 667
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Versluys v R [2008] NSWCCA 76
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Luke Edward Amos (Offender)
Representation: M. Hobart SC (Crown)
D. Stewart (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Shiranica Danieli Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/29704

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender, Luke Edward Amos, was indicted for the murder of Richard Thurman on 14 February 2009 at Ambarvale. He entered a plea of not guilty on 6 March 2012. The trial commenced on that date and continued until 11 April 2012, on which date, the jury returned a guilty verdict in relation to the count. By its verdict the jury found the offender shot the deceased 8 times causing his death. The Crown has submitted that this was deliberately done with an intention to kill.

The sentence hearing took place on 20 July 2012. At the hearing the Crown tendered the following documents:

(1) Exhibit A - a document in the nature of a victim impact statement in the name of Ms Gayle Dalley, dated 20 July 2012.

(2) Exhibit B - which contains the following documents:

(i) Impact statement of Ms Geraldine and Mr Tom Thurman;

(ii) Victim impact statement of Ms Kim Thurman;

(iii) Criminal convictions history of the offender;

(iv) Custodial movements history of the offender;

(v) Sentencing statistics.

The offender was arrested on 3 February 2010.…

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 Amos

Details

AGLC: R v Amos [2012] NSWSC 1021
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1021
Decision Date: 31 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Amos involved the defendant, Amos, who was found guilty of murder following a trial. The primary dispute was the appropriate sentencing for the offence, with a particular focus on whether the murder was part of planned or organised criminal activity under section 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court needed to determine if the offence was planned or organised, if there was evidence of a premeditated intention to kill as part of a joint criminal enterprise, and whether the offence was committed for financial gain under section 21A(2)(o), or in the home of the victim under section 21A(2)(eb).

The legal issues before the court were whether the offence was premeditated and part of a joint criminal enterprise, and whether it was committed for financial gain or in the victim's home. The court needed to carefully assess the evidence presented to determine the nature of the offence and the appropriate sentencing considerations. The court examined the evidence for any indication of a premeditated intention to kill as part of a joint criminal enterprise, finding that there was no evidence to support this. The court did, however, find that the offence was committed for financial gain, and that it occurred in the victim's home.

The court's reasoning was that while there was no evidence of a premeditated intention to kill as part of a joint criminal enterprise, the offence was indeed committed for financial gain and in the victim's home. The court considered these factors under section 21A(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and found that the appropriate sentence should reflect the nature of the offence. The court ultimately determined that the offence warranted a severe penalty, taking into account the aggravating factors present. The final orders of the court included a significant custodial sentence for Amos, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence.

Orders