R v Bradley Douglas Cooper - [2005] NSWSC 791

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Bradley Douglas Cooper [2005] NSWSC 791
Hearing dates: 30/05/2005, 31/05/2005, 01/06/2005, 02/06/2005, 03/06/2005, 06/06/2005, 07/06/2005, 08/06/2005, 09/06/2005, 10/06/2005, 14/06/2005, 15/06/2005, 29/06/2005, 12/08/2005, 05/09/2005
Decision date: 05 September 2005
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Buddin J
Decision:
1 The offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice: impose a fixed term of 18 months to commence on 18 June 2003.
2. The offence of murder: impose a non-parole period of 16½ years to commence on 18 December 2003, with the total sentence being 22 years to expire on 17 December 2025. The offender will thus be eligible for release on parole on 17 June 2020.
Catchwords: Criminal law - sentence - murder - attempt to pervert the course of justice - relevance of standard non-parole period
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Way [2004] 60 NSWLR 168
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193
Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Bradley Douglas Cooper
Representation:
Counsel:
W Creasey (Crown)
S Kluss (Offender)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh
R Parkinson (Offender)

File Number(s): SC 2004/46

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Bradley Douglas Cooper (the offender) was convicted by a jury of having murdered Dale Kevin Muldoon (the deceased) on 22 March 2003 at Lithgow. He now stands for sentence in respect of that offence and a further offence to which he pleaded guilty, namely that he disposed of the deceased’s body with intent to pervert the course of justice. It is accepted by the Crown that that plea was entered at the first reasonable opportunity. The crime of murder attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment whilst the other charge attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years.
The jury by its verdict found that the offender was responsible for the death of Mr Muldoon, which occurred in the premises which he (the offender) shared with his then de facto partner, Julie-Ann Quinn. The following day the offender enlisted the support of Kevin Denne and the offender’s 17 year old niece, who was given the pseudonym C for the purpose of these proceedings, to help him dispose of the deceased’s body.
Mr Denne was charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder. He was tried separately from the offender. As I understand it, he relied at his trial upon duress at the hands of the offender. He was acquitted. He subsequently gave evidence on behalf of the Crown at the offender’s trial. C was charged with being an accessory after the fact to murder. The Attorney-General later provided her with…

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 Bradley Douglas Cooper

Details

AGLC: R v Bradley Douglas Cooper [2005] NSWSC 791
Case: [2005] NSWSC 791
Decision Date: 05 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal by Bradley Douglas Cooper against his sentence for the murder of his mother and an attempted perversion of the course of justice. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to consider the sentence imposed on Cooper by the lower court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in failing to consider the standard non-parole period for the offence of murder, and whether this omission had an impact on the overall sentence imposed on Cooper. The court was also required to consider the sentence for the attempted perversion of the course of justice and whether it was appropriate in the circumstances.

The High Court found that the trial judge had indeed failed to consider the standard non-parole period for the offence of murder, which is a relevant consideration in sentencing. However, the court held that this error did not impact the overall sentence imposed on Cooper, as the sentence was largely driven by the gravity of the murder offence. The court also found that the sentence for the attempted perversion of the course of justice was appropriate, given the circumstances of the case.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed on Cooper by the lower court. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and the sentence be upheld.

Orders