Legal Research
Cases
R v Barrett

R v Barrett

Case [2017] NSWSC 1802 15 December 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Barrett [2017] NSWSC 1802
Hearing dates: 13 December 2017
Date of orders: 15 December 2017
Decision date: 15 December 2017
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
Sentence
1. Pursuant to s 53A(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), the offender, Derek Barrett, is sentenced to an aggregate term of 46 years imprisonment, to date from 29 April 2016 and expiring on 28 April 2062. There will be a non-parole period of 34 years and 6 months, expiring on 28 October 2050.
2.   The sentences that would have been imposed had separate sentences been fixed are:
(i)   For the offence of the murder of Ms Leng, and taking into account 21 charges on the Form 1 document, a term of 40 years and 6 months imprisonment.
(ii)   For the offence of kidnapping, a term of 9 years imprisonment.
(iii)   For the offences of committing an act of indecency, 13 months imprisonment for each count.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – murder – s 18 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – multiple stab wounds causing death – sexual offences – kidnapping - pleas of guilty – 21 other offences taken into account against offence of murder – question of whether a sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed –relevance and extent of drug use - breach of trust
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
R v Yeo [2003] NSWSC 315
Knight v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 126; [2006] NSWCCA 292
Alvares v R [2011] NSWCCA 33
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; [2000] NSWCCA 469
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557; [2004] NSWCCA 19
R v Miles [2002] NSWCCA 276
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
The Queen v Kilic (2016) 91 ALJR 131; [2016] HCA 48
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
Derek Barrett (offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Cuneen SC as Crown Prosecutor
Mr P McGrath SC (for offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW)
William Whitby of Whitby Legal

File Number(s): 2016/00132043
Publication restriction: None Exhibit B is to be sealed, and not opened other than by order of a judge of this Court, or of a superior court.

Judgment

In September 2014 Derek Barrett started down a path of sexual deviancy that would lead him to the dock of this Court where he today faces sentence for five criminal offences.
Those offences are:

three counts of committing an act of indecency contrary to section 61N(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW);

one count of detaining a person for advantage (or kidnapping) contrary to section 86(1)(b) of the Act;

and…

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 Barrett

Details

AGLC: R v Barrett [2017] NSWSC 1802
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1802
Decision Date: 15 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Barrett, stood before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, having pleaded guilty to the murder of his partner. The court heard that Barrett had inflicted multiple stab wounds upon the victim, resulting in her death. The case involved numerous other charges, including sexual offences and kidnapping, all of which Barrett admitted to. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the murder charge, considering the totality of Barrett's criminal conduct and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder charge. The court also considered the relevance and extent of Barrett's drug use at the time of the offence, as well as the breach of trust inherent in the relationship between the parties. In assessing the totality of the offender's criminal conduct, the court took into account the 21 other offences for which Barrett had pleaded guilty. These included sexual offences, kidnapping, and various other violent and non-violent crimes. The court was tasked with balancing the gravity of the murder charge against the totality of Barrett's criminal conduct.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court emphasised the heinous nature of the murder and the multiple stab wounds inflicted upon the victim. The court recognised the breach of trust in the relationship between the parties and the significant impact of Barrett's drug use on his actions. Ultimately, the court concluded that a sentence of life imprisonment was warranted, reflecting the seriousness of the murder charge and the totality of Barrett's criminal conduct. The court imposed a non-parole period of 25 years, taking into account the mitigating factors and the need to ensure public safety.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder charge, with a non-parole period of 25 years. Barrett was also sentenced to concurrent terms for the other offences, reflecting the totality of his criminal conduct. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the gravity of the murder charge alongside the broader context of the offender's criminal history and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

Orders