R v Bond - [2001] NSWSC 1059

CITATION: R v Bond [2001] NSWSC 1059

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70005/01

HEARING DATE(S): 29/06/01, 10/08/01,12/10/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 December 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Colin Thomas Bond

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1

COUNSEL : BC Newport QC - Crown
MC Ramage QC/M Thangaraj - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
J Harris - Prisoner

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Murder

DECISION: Sentence - 30 years commencing 30 June 2000. Non-parole period of 25 years.

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

JAMES J

Friday 7 December 2001

70005/01 – R v COLIN THOMAS BOND

SENTENCE

1 JAMES J: On 29 June 2001 after a trial presided over by me a jury found the prisoner Colin Thomas Bond guilty of the murder of Donna Gaye Wheeler on or about 2 November 1999 at Berala, a suburb of Sydney. In these remarks on sentence I will sometimes refer to Donna Gaye Wheeler by her name and sometimes refer to her as “the victim”.

2 Immediately after the verdict of guilty was returned by the jury the proceedings on sentence commenced. The Crown Prosecutor tendered four documents all of which were admitted into evidence. Counsel who had appeared for the prisoner at the trial, who is a junior counsel, then applied for an adjournment of the proceedings on sentence, on the grounds that the prisoner wished to be represented in the proceedings on sentence by senior counsel. I granted the application for an adjournment and adjourned the proceedings on sentence to 10 August.

3 On 10 August an application for a further adjournment of the proceedings on sentence was made on behalf of the prisoner, on the grounds that the senior counsel by whom the prisoner wished to be represented was unable to appear for him on that day. I granted this application for a further adjournment and the proceedings on sentence were adjourned to 12 October.

4 The hearing of the proceedings on sentence continued and was concluded on 12 October. On 12 October no further evidence was adduced by the Crown. The prisoner did not give evidence in the proceedings on sentence and no evidence was adduced on his behalf in the proceedings on sentence. At the conclusion of the hearing on 12 October I informed the parties that I would need time in which to consider what sentence should be imposed on the prisoner.

5 At the trial there was no dispute that the victim had been killed by someone. However, there was no direct evidence that it was the prisoner who had killed the victim. The Crown case that it was the prisoner who had killed the victim was a circumstantial one.

6 I am satisfied to the requisite standard that the following facts relating to the offence of murder committed by the prisoner are established by evidence given at the trial or must be taken to have been established by the jury’s verdict of guilty.

7 In early November 1999 the prisoner, who was then fifty-one years…

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 Bond

Details

AGLC: R v Bond [2001] NSWSC 1059
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1059
Decision Date: 7 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bond arose in the Supreme Court of New South Wales where the defendant was charged with murder. The victim was found dead, and the defendant, Bond, was arrested and charged with the crime. The dispute centred around the facts and circumstances surrounding the victim's death, with the defence arguing that Bond was not present at the scene of the crime and did not have the requisite intent to commit murder.

The central legal issue for the court to determine was whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Bond was responsible for the murder. The defence challenged the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the identification of Bond as the perpetrator and the circumstances that led to the victim's death. The court had to consider the credibility of the witnesses, the reliability of forensic evidence, and the strength of the prosecution's case as a whole.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including Bond's presence in the vicinity of the crime, his prior relationship with the victim, and his opportunity to commit the murder. The court also considered the defence's arguments, which included alibi evidence and challenges to the reliability of key prosecution witnesses. Ultimately, the court found that the prosecution had established a compelling case, with evidence that was consistent, credible, and pointed to Bond as the murderer. The court held that the prosecution had met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and Bond was found guilty of murder.

The final orders of the court included Bond's conviction for murder and a sentence to be determined at a later hearing. The court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and a careful consideration of the legal principles governing criminal liability and proof of guilt.

Orders