R v AX - [2015] NSWSC 317

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v AX [2015] NSWSC 317
Hearing dates: 19 February 2015
Decision date: 27 March 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 26 years and seven months commencing on 19 May 2014, comprising a non-parole period of 19 years and 11 months and a balance of term of six years and eight months

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - offender (23 years old) beats 76-year old victim to death - offender had defrauded victim of $30,000.00 - offender kills victim in hope that fraud will not be discovered - fraud planned but murder an impulsive response to risk of discovery of fraud - objective gravity of crime very high - intention to kill - use of weapons - early plea of guilty - assistance to authorities on unrelated matter (drug supply) - finding of remorse - caution concerning prospects of rehabilitation - specific and general deterrence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: R v Cicekdag [2004] NSWCCA 357; 150 A Crim R 299
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
AX (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr LJ Carr (Crown)
Ms BJ Rigg SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/118817
Publication restriction: A non-publication order has been made with respect to the name of the Offender who is to be referred to by the pseudonym AX

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

JOHNSON J: The Offender, AX, appears before the Court for sentence for the crime of murder. A pseudonym is used in these remarks to describe the Offender because of evidence before the Court concerning his assistance to authorities on an unrelated matter, to which reference will be made in these remarks on sentence.
On 5 December 2014, the Offender pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to the charge that on 16 April 2014 at The Rock, he did murder Rodney James Willis. That plea of guilty confirmed the plea entered by the Offender in the Local Court at an earlier time.
The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years applies.

Facts of the Offence

It is necessary to make findings of fact with respect to the offence. A Statement of Agreed Facts was tendered at the sentencing hearing. In addition, the Offender gave evidence.
What follows is drawn from the Statement of Agreed Facts with express reference being made to any findings arising from the evidence of the Offender.
At the time of his death on 16 April 2014, Mr Willis was 76 years of age. He resided in a granny flat at the rear of 9 Scott Street, The Rock (“9 Scott Street”). Residing in the main residence at 9 Scott Street was Edwin Owen, the nephew of Mr Willis. The main residence had been owned…

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 AX

Details

AGLC: R v AX [2015] NSWSC 317
Case: [2015] NSWSC 317
Decision Date: 27 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v AX involved a 23-year-old offender who brutally beat a 76-year-old victim to death. The offender had defrauded the victim of $30,000.00 and killed the victim in an attempt to prevent the discovery of the fraud. The offender had planned the fraud but the murder was an impulsive act in response to the risk of the fraud being discovered. The offender pleaded guilty early in the proceedings and demonstrated remorse. The offender also assisted the authorities on an unrelated matter involving drug supply. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the gravity of the crime, the offender's intention to kill, the use of weapons, the early guilty plea, the offender's assistance to the authorities, the finding of remorse, and the prospects of rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate sentence for the murder and the factors to be taken into account in assessing the sentence. The court had to consider the objective gravity of the crime, which was very high due to the intentional killing and the use of a weapon. The court also had to consider the offender's intention to kill, the early guilty plea, the offender's assistance to the authorities on an unrelated matter, the finding of remorse, and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors against the need for specific and general deterrence.

The court held that the objective gravity of the crime was very high due to the intentional killing and the use of a weapon. The court noted that the offender had planned the fraud but the murder was an impulsive act in response to the risk of the fraud being discovered. The court took into account the offender's early guilty plea, the offender's assistance to the authorities on an unrelated matter, and the finding of remorse. However, the court also noted that there was caution concerning the prospects of rehabilitation. The court held that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 22 years. The court held that this sentence was appropriate to achieve specific and general deterrence, to reflect the objective gravity of the crime, and to balance the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court were that the offender be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 22 years. The offender was also ordered to pay a fine of $10,000.00. The offender was further ordered to forfeit any property obtained from the fraud.

Orders