R v Breen - [2015] NSWSC 1757

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Breen [2015] NSWSC 1757
Hearing dates: 31 July 2015,12 August 2015,1 October 2015
Date of orders: 25 November 2015
Decision date: 25 November 2015
Before: Mathews AJ
Decision:
(1)   In relation to the offence of murdering Felicia Crawford, I sentence you to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 26 years commencing on 29 March 2013 and expiring on 28 March 2039, with a balance of term of 8 years, commencing on 29 March 2041 and concluding on 28 March 2047.

(2)   In relation to the offence of murdering Paul Breen, and taking into account the nine Form 1 offences, I sentence you to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 28 years commencing on 29 March 2018, and expiring on 28 March 2046, with a balance of term of 9 years, commencing on 29 March 2046 and concluding on 28 March 2055.
(3)   The total term of imprisonment is therefore 42 years, with a non-parole period of 33 years. The earliest date on which the offender will be eligible for release on parole is 28 March 2046.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder – plea of guilty – murder of father and stepmother – other offences on Form 1 – whether life sentences should be imposed – various aggravating factors – offender still young – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – offences not planned in advance – otherwise very high level of culpability – no reduction in sentence for plea of guilty
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006,
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Criminal Procedure Act, 1986
Cases Cited: Adanguidi v R (2006) 167 A Crim R 295
Milat v R [2014] NSWCCA 29
R v Harris [2000] NSWCCA 469
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Corey Alan Breen (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Thorpe (Crown)
P Young SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/96802
Publication restriction: Not Applicable

Judgment

Introduction

On 12 June 2015 Corey Alan Breen pleaded guilty on indictment to the following two charges: first, that on 29 March 2013 he murdered Paul Edward Breen; secondly, that on the same date he murdered Felicia Crawford. In addition, pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999 (“the Act”) the Court has been asked to take into account a total of nine further offences (“the Form 1 offences”) when sentencing the offender for the first of the principal offences. All the Form 1 offences were committed on 29 March 2013, and are connected with the principal offences in a manner which I will describe later. It is accordingly appropriate that I should take them into account on sentence.

Background of the Offences

The following accounts of the offender’s background and the events of 29 March 2013 are taken from the Agreed Facts which were tendered by the Crown on sentence.
The first victim, Paul Breen, was the offender’s father. The offender, who was born…

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 Breen

Details

AGLC: R v Breen [2015] NSWSC 1757
Case: [2015] NSWSC 1757
Decision Date: 25 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the appellant, Breen, pleaded guilty to the murder of his father and stepmother, and other related offences. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the appropriate sentencing for the appellant's crimes. The central issue before the court was whether life sentences should be imposed for the murders, given the presence of various aggravating factors, the appellant's young age, and the reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. The court was also required to determine whether the sentence should be reduced for the appellant's plea of guilty.

The High Court held that the appellant's culpability was extremely high, and that the aggravating factors, including the brutal nature of the murders and the lack of remorse, warranted severe punishment. However, the court also considered the appellant's age and the reasonable prospects of rehabilitation, which suggested that a life sentence might not be appropriate. Ultimately, the court found that the appellant's culpability was so high that it outweighed the mitigating factors, and that a life sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes. The court further held that no reduction in sentence should be made for the appellant's plea of guilty, as the high level of culpability and the need for deterrence and denunciation outweighed the benefits of an early plea.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the trial judge's decision to impose life sentences for the murders, but rejected the suggestion that the sentences should be reduced for the appellant's plea of guilty. The court's decision underscores the importance of considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence for serious crimes, and highlights the need for a balanced approach that takes into account the offender's culpability, age, and prospects of rehabilitation, as well as the need for deterrence and denunciation.

Orders