R v Barrett - [2009] NSWSC 338

CITATION: R v Barrett [2009] NSWSC 338

HEARING DATE(S): 12 March 2009, 26 March 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
30 April 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Mathews AJ

DECISION: Imprisonment to be served by way of a non-parole period of 16 years, commencing on 17 July 2007 and expiring on 16 July 2023, with an additional term of six years, commencing on 17 July 2023 and expiring on 16 July 2029.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - plea of guilty - carefully planned murder perpetrated through co-offender - misguided belief that deceased posed threat to offender and children - good prospects of rehabilitation

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Emma Barrett (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 12475/08

COUNSEL: H Wilson (Crown)
M Ramage QC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)
Advance Legal (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

Mathews AJ

Thursday 30 April 2009

2008/12475 R v Emma Barrett
SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR: On 10 March 2009 Emma Barrett pleaded guilty on indictment to a charge that on 23 June 2007 she murdered David Harrison.

2 The story leading up to this killing is quite a lengthy one. It started in rural South Australia in about 2004, when the offender first met the deceased, David Harrison. He was working as a supervisor at the Kooyong Dairy, where relatives of the offender were also working. The offender was aged 18 at the time, and already had two young children.

3 The offender and the deceased commenced a relationship, which was interrupted the following year when the offender was abducted by Mr Moslan, the father of her children. He forcibly detained her at gun point, and assaulted her, which in due course led to his being convicted and imprisoned for a number of criminal offences. The deceased in the meantime had moved back to his home in Victoria. His relationship with the offender resumed in 2006 when he returned to South Australia in order to give evidence in Mr Moslan’s trial.

4 Later in 2006 the offender moved to New South Wales where she lived for a time with the deceased at Curlewis, near Gunnedah. It was here that she first met her co-offender, Dean Fordham. Mr Fordham became extremely attached to the offender and her children. Probably for this reason, his relationship with the deceased was always an uneasy one, marked by considerable jealousy on both sides.

5 It was during this time at Curlewis that the offender took a document out of the deceased’s trouser pocket and showed it to Mr Fordham. She told him that it was the deceased’s hit list. This document was tendered in evidence on sentence. To any objective observer it is clearly a list of telephone numbers. It included the names and the telephone numbers of the offender and Mr Fordham. This document, and the emotions it engendered in both the offender and Mr Fordham, were central to the events…

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 [2009] NSWSC 338
Case: [2009] NSWSC 338
Decision Date: 30 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Barrett involved a defendant who had pleaded guilty to the murder of another person. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had meticulously planned the murder in collaboration with a co-offender. The defendant claimed that the murder was motivated by a misguided belief that the deceased posed a threat to himself and his children. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply and the weight to be given to the mitigating factors presented by the defendant. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, including the defendant's role and the level of planning involved. Additionally, the court needed to assess the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation and whether these prospects warranted a more lenient sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the premeditated nature of the crime and the significant harm caused to the victim. However, the court also recognised the defendant's genuine belief, albeit misguided, that he was protecting his family. The court placed considerable weight on the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation, noting his otherwise good character and the absence of a prior criminal record. Ultimately, the court determined that these factors warranted a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the potential for the defendant to reintegrate into society. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting both the gravity of the offence and the defendant's potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for the defendant, with a non-parole period set at a specific duration. This sentence was designed to ensure that the defendant received appropriate punishment for his crime while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society.

Orders