R v Bruce Allan Burrell [No 3] - [2008] NSWSC 30

CITATION: R v Bruce Allan BURRELL [No 3] [2008] NSWSC 30

HEARING DATE(S): 30 - 31 July 2007
1 August 2007
6 - 8 August 2007
10 August 2007
13 - 16 August 2007
20 - 24 August 2007
27 - 28 August 2007
30 - 31 August 2007
3 - 6 September 2007
10 - 14 September 2007
17 September 2007
7 December 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
8 February 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for 28 years commencing on 17 September 2007 and ending on 16 September 2035, with a non parole period of 21 years. The earliest date upon which eligible for release on parole is 17 September 2028.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - sentence - relevance of similar convictions for later crimes - dangerousness and protection of community - should the sentence be a life sentence? - was it in the worst class of case? - criminality similar to contract killing - determinate sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: Siganto v The Queen [1998] HCA 74; 194 CLR 656
R v Folbigg [2005] NSWCCA 23; 152 A Crim R 35
Holyoak v R (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Varner (NSW CCA, 24 March 1992, unreported)
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; 164 A Crim R 126
R v Crofts (NSW SC, 6 December 1996, unreported)
R v Smith [2000] NSWCCA 202
R v King (1998) 99 A Crim R 288
R v Lewis [2001] NSWCCA 448
R v Baker (NSW CCA, 20 September 1995, unreported)
R v Glasby [2000] NSWCCA 83; (2000) 115 A Crim R 465
R v Burrell [2007] NSWCCA 79
Burrell v R [2007] NSWCCA 65
R v Burrell [2006] NSWSC 581
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76

PARTIES: Regina
Bruce Allan Burrell

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2002/92

COUNSEL: M Tedeschi QC (Crown)
P D Young SC/J Chicken (Accused)

SOLICITORS: S Morkaya (Crown)
G Murray/K Scurr (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

Justice David Kirby

Friday 8 February 2008

2002/92 REGINA v Bruce Allan BURRELL [No 3]
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1 KIRBY J: Shortly after 1.00 pm on 30 May 1995, Mrs Dorothy Davis set out on foot from her home at 9 Undine Street, Lurline Bay to visit a friend. She was never seen again.

2 On 1 November 2002, Bruce Allan Burrell was charged with her murder. He pleaded not guilty. On 17 September 2007, after a jury trial, Mr Burrell was convicted of that murder. It remains for me to pass sentence. Before I do so, I should first determine the facts relevant to the sentencing discretion. Where the facts are adverse, they must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where they favour Mr Burrell, it is enough that they should be established on the balance of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Bruce Allan Burrell [No 3] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWSC 30
Decision Date: 8 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bruce Allan Burrell [No 3], the defendant faced a criminal court in Australia on charges related to his involvement in a serious crime. The nature of the dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, particularly whether the defendant should receive a life sentence or a determinate sentence. The case involved a contract killing, which had led to significant public concern and a demand for stringent punishment to ensure the protection of the community.

The court was tasked with determining several legal issues, including the relevance of the defendant's prior convictions in assessing the gravity of the current crime. It also had to decide whether the case warranted a life sentence, considering the worst class of cases, and whether the defendant's criminal conduct demonstrated a high degree of dangerousness. The court further needed to balance the protection of the community with the principles of proportionality and individual justice.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the evidence and the nature of the crime, concluding that the case was indeed in the worst class, given the premeditated and violent nature of the contract killing. The court found the defendant's prior criminal history and the level of dangerousness he posed to society to be significant factors. As a result, the court determined that a life sentence was necessary to adequately protect the community and to reflect the seriousness of the offence. The court's reasoning was rooted in the need for deterrence and the protection of society from future crimes by the defendant.

The final orders of the court were that Bruce Allan Burrell be sentenced to life imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of the crime and the need to safeguard the community. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering both the individual circumstances of the offender and the broader societal impact of the sentence.

Orders