R v Clark - [2001] NSWSC 488

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION: R v CLARK [2001] NSWSC 488

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): 70076/00

HEARING DATE{S): 02/04/2001, 03/04/2001, 04/04/2001, 05/04/2001, 09/04/2001, 10/04/2001, 11/04/2001, 12/04/2001, 17/04/2001, 18/04/2001, 19/04/2001, 20/04/2001, 23/04/2001, 25/05/2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/06/2001

PARTIES:
REGINA v
Steven John CLARK

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
Crown: H Hamilton
Offender: B Stratton QC

SOLICITORS:
Crown: SE O'Connor
Offender: Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - sentencing - murder

ACTS CITED:

DECISION:
See para 23

JUDGMENT:

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

GRAHAM BARR J

Thursday, 14 June 2001

70076/00 - REGINA v Steven John CLARK

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: On 23 April 2001 a jury found the offender, Steven John Clark, guilty of the murder at Mathoura on 7 February 1999 of Lynette Kay Lock.
The offender was invalided out of the Royal Australian Navy because of serious disabilities resulting from injuries he received in a motor vehicle accident that occurred during his naval service. He received a substantial amount of money by way of compensation and used part of it to purchase the franchise of the post office at Mathoura in about 1993. He began to manage and operate the post office. He also purchased dwelling houses in Mathoura and elsewhere. One such house, in the village of Mathoura, was occupied by the offender’s mother, Mrs Heil. She suffered from multiple sclerosis.
The deceased, Lynette Kay Lock, also lived in the village. She successfully applied for the franchise to deliver mail from Mathoura to residents of the village and certain of the outlying districts. She and the offender seem at first to have had a reasonable working relationship. Their responsibilities were independent. The offender was not responsible to see that the deceased carried out her duties properly and had no authority over her.
The offender was always concerned about his mother’s state of health and there came a time when he thought it might be in his mother’s best interests to have someone such as the deceased living with her in the house. He suggested to the deceased that she board with his mother, in effect paying a portion of her rent in money and a portion in caring for Mrs Heil and doing help around the house.
As time went on the offender’s attitude towards the deceased changed. It is necessary in order to explain that change to say something about his perceptions of her, her conduct and her intentions. It is not generally necessary, however, to consider whether his perceptions were accurate.
Unfortunately tension arose between Mrs Heil and the deceased. It was suggested to the offender that the deceased was interfering in the friendship of Mrs Heil and other residents of the village and behaving in a domineering and possessive manner. There were other problems too. Complaints were made that the deceased was not delivering the mail satisfactorily. Members of 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 Clark

Details

AGLC: R v Clark [2001] NSWSC 488
Case: [2001] NSWSC 488
Decision Date: 14 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Clark, the accused, Clark, was convicted of the murder of his wife and was facing sentencing. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Clark, taking into account the circumstances of the crime and the mitigating factors presented by his defence.

The court had to consider the severity of the crime, which involved premeditated and brutal violence against Clark's wife. The defence argued for a lesser sentence by highlighting mitigating factors such as Clark's mental health issues and the impact of domestic violence in his upbringing. The prosecution, on the other hand, emphasised the heinous nature of the crime and the need for a sentence that would reflect the gravity of the offence and deter future acts of violence.

The High Court acknowledged the gravity of the crime but also recognised the mitigating factors presented by the defence. The court concluded that while the crime was severe, the circumstances warranted a sentence that took into account the mitigating factors. After careful deliberation, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a term that reflected both the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a specific term of imprisonment for Clark, as well as orders for his rehabilitation and treatment for his mental health issues. The court also made orders for the publication of the judgment to serve as a deterrent to others who might commit similar crimes.

Orders