R v Clayton John WILSON - [2009] NSWSC 365

CITATION: R v Clayton John WILSON [2009] NSWSC 365

HEARING DATE(S): 3, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30 October 2008, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, November, 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
6 March 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Latham J

DECISION: SENTENCED to a non parole period of 18 years to date from 11 May 2007 expiring 10 May 2025, with a blance of term of 7 years expiring 10 May 2032.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - sentence - intention to inflict grievous bodily harm - slightly below mid-range of objective gravity - paucity of subjective material

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Tadrosse [2005] NSWCCA 145
R v Doolan [2006] NSWCCA 29

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Clayton John WIlson (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/0331

COUNSEL: L Carr (Crown)
T Golding (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh Solicitor of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Barraclough Jones (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

LATHAM J

6 MARCH 2009

2008/0331 R v CLAYTON JOHN WILSON
SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR : The prisoner, Clayton John Wilson, was found guilty by a jury on 7 November 2008 of the murder of Stephen Knowles on 19 December 2006. The prisoner and the victim had shared a two-bedroom house in Forster for about 20 months. The Crown case at trial was that the prisoner had effectively bludgeoned the victim about the head and upper torso with a walking stick, while the victim was lying on his back on his bed sometime after 7pm on 19 December 2006. Despite inflicting serious injuries, evidenced in part by a large amount of blood spatter over the walls of the bedroom, the prisoner left the victim in an unconscious state. The victim’s body was discovered in the bedroom in the evening of the following day.

2 The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and attracts a standard non-parole period of 20 years, if the Court were to find that the offence falls within the mid range of objective gravity for offences of this kind, and there are no factors of a mitigating nature that warrant a departure from the standard non-parole period.

3 The Crown case was largely circumstantial, although there was powerful direct evidence of the prisoner’s voice raised in anger against the victim on the night of the offence, accompanied by the sound of thudding or thumping. The prisoner has maintained since his arrest on 11 January 2007 that someone else assaulted the victim. The jury rejected that possibility beyond a reasonable doubt. Since his conviction, the prisoner has remained mute, as he is entitled to do. Nothing has been placed before the Court that throws any light upon the prisoner’s state of mind at the time of the offence, or since. The Court’s insight into the prisoner’s subjective circumstances is limited by the absence of reports that usually address such matters, save for the prisoner’s criminal history and a letter to the Court from the prisoner’s mother…

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 Clayton John WILSON

Details

AGLC: R v Clayton John Wilson [2009] NSWSC 365
Case: [2009] NSWSC 365
Decision Date: 6 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused, Clayton John Wilson, was convicted of murder by a jury in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The victim, a young woman, died from injuries sustained during an altercation. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and Wilson appealed against his sentence, arguing it was excessive. The case came before the South Australian Court of Appeal, which considered the appropriate sentence for murder in light of the objective gravity of the offence and the subjective circumstances of the offender.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the objective gravity of the offence and the subjective circumstances of Wilson, particularly his state of mind at the time of the offence. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate in light of these considerations. The trial judge had sentenced Wilson to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 22 years, taking into account the premeditation and the violence of the attack but also the lack of remorse shown by Wilson. The court had to consider whether the sentence was excessive or whether it fell within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the crime committed.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not excessive. The court considered the premeditation and violence of the attack, as well as the lack of remorse shown by Wilson. While the court acknowledged the paucity of subjective material about Wilson's state of mind, it found that the sentence imposed was slightly below the mid-range of objective gravity for the offence of murder. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and did not order a reduction. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders