R v Billings - [2012] NSWSC 1020

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Billings [2012] NSWSC 1020
Hearing dates: 10, 12, 16-20, 23-24, 26-27, 30 April 2012;1-3, 7, 9-11, 14-17, 21-25, 28-30 May 2012;6 June 2012; 24 August 2012
Decision date: 31 August 2012
Before: Barr AJ
Decision:
Craig Billings sentenced to imprisonment. A non-parole period of 30 years is set. That period will be taken to have commenced on 30 July 2007 and will expire on 29 July 2037. The balance of the term of the sentence is 10 years, expiring on 29 July 2047. The first day on which Mr Billings will become eligible for release to parole will be 29 July 2037.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - trial by jury - convicted of five offences - sentence - aggregate sentences - robbery - murder - armed with firearm - discharge firearm - aggravated take motor vehicle - no remorse - aggregate sentences
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Craig Ronald Billings (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
T Bailey (Crown)
A Webb/S Fraser (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
O'Brien Solicitors (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2009/236209

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Following a trial by jury the offender, Craig Ronald Billings, was found guilty of the following offences -

1. On 21 December 2006 at Randwick, while armed with an offensive weapon, he robbed Alan Veney of certain property and at the same time wounded him.

2. On 6 January 2007 at Surry Hills, while armed with an offensive weapon, he assaulted Elie Stanbouli with intent to take a motor vehicle and took the motor vehicle without Mr Stanbouli's consent.

3. On 20 January 2007 at Redfern he shot at Constable Justin Knight with intent to murder him.

4. On 4 February 2007 at Canley Vale he murdered Raymond James Brown.

5. On 8 February 2007 at Cabramatta, while armed with an offensive weapon, he robbed Judith Anderson of certain property.

The facts of the five offences may be summarised as follows.

The Randwick offence

At about 2.45am on 21 December 2006 Mr Alan Veney was walking along the footpath in Avoca Street, Randwick, having finished his shift as a taxi driver. As he did so a van stopped beside him. The offender was seated in the front nearside seat wearing a balaclava. The window was open. The offender rested the barrel of a sawn-off 0.22 rifle on the door frame, pointing it at Mr Veney, and ordered him to hand over his property. He asked for his watch and his wallet. Mr Veney was not cowed. He told the offender that he had neither, but threw him a satchel containing papers. The offender got out of the van, still pointing the rifle at Mr Veney, and patted him down, searching for things to steal. He ordered Mr Veney to hand over a backpack that he had on his back. Mr Veney refused to do so and they began to struggle for its possession. Mr Veney won. He tried to edge away but the offender said that…

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 Billings

Details

AGLC: R v Billings [2012] NSWSC 1020
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1020
Decision Date: 31 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Billings involved a defendant who was convicted of five criminal offences, including robbery, murder, and discharging a firearm. The defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of these offences, and also took a motor vehicle in an aggravated manner. The case was heard and determined in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The defendant's trial was by jury, and following their conviction, the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence.

The primary legal issues before the court were the calculation of the aggregate sentences for the multiple offences, and the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant. The court had to consider the severity of the offences, the circumstances in which they were committed, and the defendant's lack of remorse. Additionally, the court had to ensure that the aggregate sentence did not exceed the statutory limits and that it was just and proportionate to the crimes committed.

In determining the sentence, the court took into account the seriousness of the offences, the fact that the defendant was armed with a firearm during the commission of the crimes, and the lack of remorse shown by the defendant. The court also considered the need to protect the community and to deter similar offences in the future. The court held that the aggregate sentence should reflect the gravity of the offences and the defendant's culpability. The court imposed a sentence that was within the statutory limits and was deemed to be just and proportionate to the crimes committed.

The final orders of the court included the defendant's conviction on all five counts, and the imposition of an aggregate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's lack of remorse. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed, and that it served to protect the community and deter similar offences in the future.

Orders