Legal Research
Cases
R v Bidner (Sentence)

R v Bidner (Sentence)

Case [2023] NSWSC 880 27 July 2023

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bidner (Sentence) [2023] NSWSC 880
Hearing dates: 21 July 2023
Date of orders: 27 July 2023
Decision date: 27 July 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1. Having been convicted of the murder of Shane Mears the offender, Adam Bidner, is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 24 years and 8 months, commencing on 11 March 2022, and expiring on 10 November 2046. There will be a non-parole period of 18 years, expiring on 10 March 2040.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – guilty plea at late stage of proceedings – motor vehicle used as weapon – intention to kill – spontaneous and opportunistic – blunt force head and chest trauma – absence of provocation – attempts to conceal evidence – high moral culpability – offender’s untested and unsworn evidence – lack of evidence of remorse – methylamphetamine use – deterrence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
R v Bidner [2022] NSWSC 2022
RvEdwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Isaacs(1997) 41 NSWLR 374; 90 A Crim R 587
Shaw v R [2008] NSWCCA 58

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Adam Bidner (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Costello (Crown)
M Hobart SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Just Defence Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/202106
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: On 1 March 2023, that being the second occasion on which this matter was listed for trial, the offender, Adam Bidner, was arraigned before the Court and a jury panel upon a charge that he did, on 5 July 2020, at Cessnock in this State, murder Shane Mears. He entered a plea of not guilty to that charge, as well as to a number of alternative and associated counts charged against him. A jury was empanelled to hear the offender’s trial and four witnesses were called in the Crown case before the jury was permitted to separate for the day.
The following day, prior to the recommencement of evidence, the Court was told that, having received an expert report that did not assist his case, the offender intended to enter a plea of guilty to the murder of Mr Mears. The plea was formally entered when the offender was re-arraigned on 6 March 2023. A conviction for the offence was recorded that day.
Murder is an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and it carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The standard non-parole period that applies in the circumstances of this case is one of 20 years imprisonment. By virtue of the plea of guilty entered to the charge the offender is entitled to a mandatory discount on sentence of 5%, in compliance with s 25D(2)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (“the CSP Act”).

The Facts of the Crime

The facts of the murder of Shane Mears are established to…

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 Bidner (Sentence)

Details

AGLC: R v Bidner (Sentence) [2023] NSWSC 880
Case: [2023] NSWSC 880
Decision Date: 27 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Bidner, was charged with the murder of a man in New South Wales. Bidner, who initially pleaded not guilty, later changed his plea to guilty. The incident involved Bidner using a motor vehicle as a weapon, resulting in fatal injuries to the victim through blunt force trauma to the head and chest. Bidner's actions were spontaneous and opportunistic, and there was no evidence of provocation. Bidner attempted to conceal evidence and exhibited high moral culpability. Bidner presented unsworn evidence, in which he did not display remorse, and had a history of methylamphetamine use. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the nature of the offence, Bidner's lack of remorse, and the need for deterrence.

The court considered several factors in determining the sentence, including the brutal and premeditated nature of the crime, the high moral culpability of Bidner, and the lack of remorse shown. The court also took into account Bidner's history of drug use and his attempts to conceal evidence. The court held that the offence was of a high degree of seriousness and warranted a significant sentence. The court further noted that Bidner's lack of remorse and his history of drug use were aggravating factors that needed to be considered. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was one of life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years.

The court found that Bidner's actions were of a high degree of moral culpability and warranted a severe sentence. The use of a motor vehicle as a weapon, the absence of provocation, and the attempts to conceal evidence all contributed to the seriousness of the offence. The court also considered the need for deterrence, given Bidner's history of drug use and lack of remorse. The court held that a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years was appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need to protect society. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of all relevant factors and the principles of sentencing in cases of murder.

Orders