R v Armstrong - [2010] NSWSC 800

CITATION: R v Armstrong [2010] NSWSC 800

HEARING DATE(S): 20 April 2010, 21 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
12 August 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: For the murder of Felipe Flores, the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 11 years and 6 months imprisonment with a total term of 17 years imprisonment to date from 4 December 2008. The total term will expire on 3 December 2025 and the offender will be eligible for release on parole on 3 June 2020.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - offender convicted of murder - offence committed in 1991 - need to consider sentencing patterns and practices at that time

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Life Sentences) Act 1989
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
R v FD & JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392
R v MJR (2002) 54 NSWLR 368
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517

PARTIES: Regina
Paul Darcey Armstrong

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/63851

COUNSEL: M Cunneen SC (Crown)
A Haesler SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

THURSDAY 12 AUGUST 2010

2009/63851 - REGINA v PAUL DARCEY ARMSTRONG
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Paul Darcey Armstrong (the offender) stands for sentence following his conviction by a jury of the murder of Felipe Flores on 2 September 1991. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment. As the offence was committed before the legislation providing for the fixing of standard non-parole periods was introduced, it follows that no standard non-parole period is applicable in this case.

2 It now falls to me to determine the factual basis upon which the offender stands to be sentenced. My task in that regard is made considerably easier because there is no real disagreement between the parties about that material.

3 The deceased’s body was located by a security guard, Mr Robert Small in the early hours of 2 September 1991. It was discovered in a deserted area behind an electricity sub-station which is just off Lincoln Crescent in Woolloomooloo. The deceased had been brutally beaten to death. Dr Schwartz, who conducted the post-mortem upon the deceased, concluded that his death was attributable to the multiple injuries which he had sustained and in particular those which had been inflicted to his vital organs such as his heart, lung, liver and spleen. The evidence demonstrated that his liver had been almost split in half and that his ribs had been broken. He had also suffered injuries to his genitals. Photographs taken of the deceased in the position in which he was found reveal the nature and extent of his injuries. He had bruising, abrasions and lacerations to his face and his nose had been broken. It is also clear that his face had been stomped on although it does not…

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 Armstrong

Details

AGLC: R v Armstrong [2010] NSWSC 800
Case: [2010] NSWSC 800
Decision Date: 12 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Armstrong involved the offender, Armstrong, who was convicted of murder for an offence committed in 1991. The primary dispute centred around the appropriate sentencing for the offence, considering the time period in which it was committed. The case was heard in the relevant higher court, where the sentencing patterns and practices of 1991 were taken into account.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Armstrong, considering the sentencing practices and patterns in place during the time the offence was committed. The legal issues involved assessing the severity of the crime, the offender's background, and the sentencing trends of the period in which the offence occurred.

The court emphasised the importance of understanding the sentencing practices and patterns of 1991 in determining an appropriate sentence for Armstrong. It was noted that the courts of that time had a range of penalties available to them, including life imprisonment, and that the offender's personal circumstances and background should also be considered. After reviewing the evidence and considering the relevant factors, the court found that Armstrong should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the sentencing practices of 1991.

The final orders of the court were that Armstrong be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with the specific length of the sentence determined by the court after considering the relevant factors, including the sentencing practices and patterns of 1991. The court's decision highlighted the importance of taking into account the historical context of sentencing in determining an appropriate punishment for an offender.

Orders