R v Corrie Loveridge; R v AB

Link copied
Case Copied 44 min read

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Corrie LOVERIDGE; R v AB [2013] NSWSC 1591
Hearing dates:4 - 8, 11 - 15, 18 - 22, 25 - 28 March 2013; 2 - 5, 8 - 12 April 2013; 15 August 2013; 13 September 2013
Decision date: 01 November 2013
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Adams J
Decision:

Corrie Loveridge:

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 45 years commencing 2 December 2010 and expiring 1 December 2055. Non-parole period of 30 years commencing 2 December 2010. The earliest date upon which Loveridge may be released on parole is 2 December 2040.

AB:

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 45 years commencing 16 December 2010 and expiring 15 December 2055. Non-parole period of 30 years commencing 16 December 2010. The earliest date upon which AB may be released on parole is 16 December 2040.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW - murder - two offenders - parity - category of most serious cases - significance of pleas of guilty - discount of plea of guilty withheld for the protection of the public - Aboriginality

CRIMINAL LAW - aggravated break and enter - inflict grievous bodily harm and actual bodily harm - in company - in home of vulnerable victim

CRIMINAL LAW - use postal service to threaten and to cause harm - intimidation - recruiting a child to commit a crime - influencing witnesses
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Cases Cited: R v Crump (unreported NSWCCA 30 May 1994)
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 87 ALJR 1022
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina
Corrie Loveridge
AB
Representation: Counsel:
G J Tabuteau (Crown)
M Austin (Loveridge)
J Stratton SC (AB)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Sydney Criminal & Family Lawyers (Loveridge)
T & A Legal Pty Limited (AB)
File Number(s):2010/402130; 2010/428341; 2010/417893; 2010/427554

Judgment

Introduction

  1. In the early hours of 1 December 2010 Alan Ray Gordon, then aged 17 years and 5 months was stabbed to death by Corrie Loveridge and AB. Loveridge was convicted of murder following a trial, whilst AB was convicted of murder following his plea of guilty. Each offender is liable to imprisonment for life. The standard non-parole period of 25 years applies in Loveridge's case, since he was just over the age of 18 years at the time but not to AB, since he was then aged 17 years and 6 months.

  1. Each offender also pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house, intending to steal from it. Serious injury was inflicted on the occupier of the premises, Mrs Elena Parrelli. Loveridge also pleaded guilty to an associated charge of robbing Mrs Parrelli of a wristwatch and a colour television, inflicting grievous bodily harm upon her at the time. Loveridge pleaded guilty to specially aggravated break and enter, the circumstances of special aggravation being the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm. Loveridge's offences respectively carry maximum terms of imprisonment of 25 years imprisonment…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Corrie Loveridge; R v AB 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
[2013] NSWSC 1591
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, two separate appeals were heard against convictions for serious criminal offences. In the first matter, Corrie Loveridge was convicted of murder and associated charges. The second offender, AB, was convicted of aggravated break and enter, causing grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm, and other related offences. Both appellants challenged the severity of their respective sentences, with Loveridge contending that the discount for his guilty plea should have been applied and AB arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue in both cases centred on the appropriate weight to be given to various factors when determining the appropriate sentence. For Loveridge, the court considered the principle of parity in sentencing between co-offenders, the significance of his guilty plea, and the need to protect the public. For AB, the court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, including the vulnerability of the victims, and the impact of his Aboriginality on the sentencing process.

The court held that in the case of Loveridge, despite his guilty plea, the discount should not be applied as it was necessary to protect the public due to the gravity of the crime. In relation to AB, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court also emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each offender, including their background and the impact of their Aboriginality on their offending behaviour.

No orders were made by the court to alter the sentences in either case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.