Legal Research
Cases
R v Batcheldor

R v Batcheldor

Case [2015] NSWSC 1688 13 November 2015

Criminal Liability

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Batcheldor [2015] NSWSC 1688
Hearing dates: 21 September 2015; 24 September 2015; 8 October 2015;
Date of orders: 13 November 2015
Decision date: 13 November 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See paragraphs [106]-[108]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Aggravated Kidnapping – Accessory after the fact to murder – Where offender previously found guilty by a jury and sentenced for specially aggravated kidnapping and murder – Where offender successfully appealed against those convictions – Where Crown accepted pleas of guilty to offences of aggravated kidnapping and accessory after the fact to murder – Application of the ceiling principle - Objective seriousness of offending – Extent of applicable discount to reflect the utilitarian value of the plea – Late expressions of remorse – Favourable prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Armstrong v R [2015] NSWCCA 273
Batcheldor v R; Walsh v R [2014] NSWCCA 252
Kaminic v R [2014] NSWCCA 116
R v Batcheldor [2012] NSWSC 1398
R v Newell [2004] NWCCA 183
R v NP [2003] NSWCCA 195
R v PB [2008] NSWCCA 109; (2008) 184 A Crim R 552
R v Serone [2012] NSWSC 1232.
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Urriola [2010] NSWSC 367
R v Walsh [2012] NSWSC 1399
R v Ward [2004] NSWSC 420
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina - Crown
Lauren Mae Batcheldor - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
B Hatfield - Crown
D Dalton SC – Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Crown
Maguire and McInerney Lawyers – Offender

File Number(s): 2010/00047811-1
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

In August 2012, Lauren Mae Batcheldor (“the offender”) stood trial jointly with Richard Walsh (“Walsh”) in this Court in respect of two counts, namely:

the specially aggravated kidnapping of Mathew Digby (“the deceased”); and

the murder of the deceased.

Both the offender and Walsh were found guilty by the jury in respect of each count, and were sentenced to terms of imprisonment: R v Batcheldor [2012] NSWSC 1398; R v Walsh [2012] NSWSC 1399.
Appeals brought by each of the offender and Walsh against their respective convictions were heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 23 May 2014. On 10 November 2014, the Court dismissed Walsh’s appeal. On the same day, the Court allowed the offender’s appeal and ordered a re-trial: Batcheldor v R; Walsh v R [2014] NSWCCA 252.
On 21 September 2015 the offender appeared before me and pleaded guilty to an indictment containing the following counts:

that between the 22nd day of January 2010 and the 25th day of January 2010, in Wollongong in the State of New South Wales, whilst in the company of Richard Walsh, did detain Mathew Digby without his consent, with intent to obtain an advantage, namely to obtain information about property previously stolen (Count 1).

between the 22nd day…

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 Batcheldor

Details

AGLC: R v Batcheldor [2015] NSWSC 1688
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1688
Decision Date: 13 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent was convicted by a jury for the offences of specially aggravated kidnapping and murder. Following the conviction, the respondent was sentenced. The respondent subsequently appealed the conviction and sentence, and the appeal was successful. The respondent subsequently entered pleas of guilty to the offences of aggravated kidnapping and being an accessory after the fact to murder. The Crown accepted the pleas. The sentencing court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the offences. The court was required to determine whether the ceiling principle applied and, if so, how to approach the sentencing of the respondent. The court was also required to determine the objective seriousness of the offending and the extent of any discount to reflect the utility of the plea. The court was also required to consider the respondent's late expressions of remorse and the favourable prospects of rehabilitation.

The court held that the ceiling principle applied to the offence of aggravated kidnapping, and that the maximum penalty was ten years imprisonment. The court considered the aggravating features of the offending, including the serious harm caused to the victim, and the fact that the offence was premeditated. The court held that the objective seriousness of the offending was very high. The court considered the extent of the discount to reflect the utility of the plea, and held that a discount of 20% was appropriate. The court considered the late expressions of remorse, and held that they were genuine, but that they did not warrant a substantial reduction in sentence. The court also considered the favourable prospects of rehabilitation, and held that they warranted some reduction in sentence. The court sentenced the respondent to eight years imprisonment for the offence of aggravated kidnapping, with a non-parole period of six years. The court imposed a concurrent sentence of five years imprisonment for the offence of being an accessory after the fact to murder, with a non-parole period of three years.

The court made orders for the sentences to run concurrently.

Orders