R v Brown - [2004] NSWSC 194

CITATION: R v BROWN [2004] NSWSC 194

HEARING DATE(S): 6 February 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1

DECISION: See paragraph 43

PARTIES :
Regina
Ross Ernest BROWN

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70017/03

COUNSEL: Crown: Mr P Creasey
Prisoner: Ms C Davenport

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor Director Public Prosecutions
Prisoner: P Krisenthal Legal Aid Commission

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

HULME J

Friday, 6 February 2004

RE: REGINA v Ross Ernest BROWN

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HULME J: On 27 November last, the prisoner was convicted by a jury of having, on 2 June 2000 at Anna Bay, murdered his wife. It now falls upon me to sentence him. In that process, I am bound by the findings implicit in the jury’s verdict and to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of any other matters I use in a manner adverse to the prisoner. The standard of proof of matters that argue in mitigation is proof on the balance of probabilities.

2 Mrs Brown died as a result of being struck a number of times on the head with a blunt object which, I am satisfied, was a statue used in the household as a doorstop for the front door and weighing something of the order of seven and a half kilograms.

3 It seems practically certain that Mrs Brown was last seen alive by anyone other than the prisoner at about 8.30am when two of their children left for school. A third child had left somewhat earlier, being driven by the prisoner who then returned to their home.

4 Some time later, the prisoner again departed, his time of departure being a matter of some controversy. The prisoner then spent much of the day in the Anna Bay Tavern, although it may well be that before arriving there at or prior to about 10.30, he took his dog for some exercise on a local beach. The prisoner ultimately left the hotel at about 2.30pm, driving home. He entered the house and after some time left, running to a neighbour’s house in a state of apparent distress.

5 Thereafter, both on 2 June and later, he has maintained the stance that he was not involved in his wife’s death; that it occurred between the time he left the house that morning and his return in the afternoon; and that the first he knew of the death was when he entered the house in the afternoon.

6 It is implicit in the jury’s verdict in light of the issues and evidence in the trial that this stance is false. I am not sure that it is necessary to do so but in this connection I would add that I was satisfied to the requisite standard by the evidence of Mrs Morrison that she had seen the prisoner’s car at his house at about 10 past 9.

7 A question arises as to how the prisoner came to kill the…

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 Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Brown [2004] NSWSC 194
Case: [2004] NSWSC 194
Decision Date: 6 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Ross Ernest Brown, the defendant was convicted of murdering his wife on 2 June 2000. The Supreme Court of New South Wales, presided over by Hulme J, was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Brown. The legal issues involved assessing the circumstances of the murder, Brown's character and criminal history, and determining a sentence that appropriately balanced the purposes of punishment including deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution.

Hulme J found that the murder was likely the result of an outburst of anger rather than premeditated, though Brown's persistence in his attack indicated an intent to cause harm. The court considered Brown's background, which included convictions for drug use and excessive alcohol consumption, but found no evidence of psychiatric disorder. Brown's lack of remorse and history of violent tendencies were noted but balanced against his prospects for rehabilitation and low likelihood of re-offending. The court compared Brown's case to other murder cases to ensure the sentence was proportionate to the severity of the crime.

Ultimately, Hulme J sentenced Brown to 18 years in prison with a non-parole period of 13 years and 6 months, backdated to the date of his remand in custody. This sentence aimed to appropriately reflect the criminality of the offence while considering Brown's personal circumstances and prospects for rehabilitation.

Orders