R v Bunce - [2007] NSWSC 469

CITATION: Regina v Bunce [2007] NSWSC 469

HEARING DATE(S): 26 March 2007
2 April 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
11 May 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Price J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 24 years which is to commence on 23 May 2005 and is to expire on 22 May 2029. Non-parole period of 18 years which is to commence on 23 May 2005 and expire on 22 May 2023. Eligible to be released on parole on 22 May 2023.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Practice and Procedure - sentencing - murder - guilty plea - lack of contrition - voluntary disclosure - utilitarian discount - sentencing practice as at the date of commission of offence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s3A, s21A, s21A(2)(n), s21(1), s44
Crimes Act 1900 s 19A, s19A(2), s19A(3),

CASES CITED: R v Harrison (1997) 93 A Crim R 314
R v Palinko [2005] NSWCCA 46
R v SLD (2003) 58 NSWLR 589
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270

PARTIES: Regina
Gareth John Bunce

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1215 of 2006

COUNSEL: Mr J Kiely SC - Crown
My P Young SC - Public Defender on 26.3.07, 2.4.07
Mr Bunce in person 11. 5.07

- 23 -

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

PRICE J

FRIDAY 11 MAY 2007

1215 OF 2006 REGINA V GARETH JOHN BUNCE

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Gareth John Bunce pleads guilty to the murder of Margaret Elizabeth Wagner on 18 March 1997.

2 At the time of her death the deceased lived with her husband, Shane Andrew Metcalfe, and their two children, Jason then aged 7 and Samantha aged 2, at 88 Richard Street, Warrimoo. It was in Jason’s bedroom in the home that the deceased died as a result of the prisoner placing both his hands on her neck and strangling her. She was 27 years old when she was murdered.

3 During the prisoner’s evidence on sentence it became apparent that the extent of the prisoner’s pre meditation to kill the deceased was in dispute. The Crown contends that the prisoner travelled to Warrimoo on the day of the murder with the intention of killing the deceased whereas the prisoner gave evidence that the intention was formed when guns were placed in his hands whilst he was in the deceased’s home.

4 The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the intent to kill had been formed by the prisoner prior to his attendance at the home on 18 March 1997.

5 The authorship of an undated letter addressed to the deceased in 1993 and whether the prisoner had sexual intercourse with the deceased on the day of her death are further matters of fact which are in dispute and are for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt as findings adverse to the prisoner may increase the objective seriousness of the offence: see

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 Bunce

Details

AGLC: Regina v Bunce [2007] NSWSC 469
Case: [2007] NSWSC 469
Decision Date: 11 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard an appeal from the respondent, Bunce, against his sentence for murder. Bunce had pleaded guilty to the murder of a man during a drug deal gone wrong. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate. The key issues were the lack of contrition shown by Bunce, the fact that he had not voluntarily disclosed the location of the victim's body, and the appropriate discount for his guilty plea. Additionally, the court needed to consider the sentencing practices applicable at the time the offence was committed.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for murder and the factors that should be taken into account. It noted that the lack of contrition and failure to voluntarily disclose the location of the victim's body were significant aggravating factors. The court also considered the discount for Bunce's guilty plea, which was ultimately set at 25%. The trial judge had taken into account the sentencing practices as at the date of the commission of the offence, which was a relevant consideration. The court found that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and upheld the sentence, rejecting the appeal.

In conclusion, the court held that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in sentencing Bunce. The sentence was deemed to be appropriate given the circumstances of the case, including the aggravating factors and the discount for the guilty plea. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant principles and factors, and the sentence was upheld. No further orders were made.

Orders