R v Cox - [2009] NSWSC 1067

CITATION: R v Cox [2009] NSWSC 1067

HEARING DATE(S): 6 October 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
16 October 2009

JUDGMENT OF: R A Hulme J

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years with a non-parole period of 13 years 6 months.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - intend to inflict grievous bodily harm - severe beating with a large wrench - offender intoxicated and believed deceased was a paedophile - offence just below mid-range seriousness

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: Smale v R [2009] NSWCCA 220

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Justin Paul Cox (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/11027

COUNSEL: Mr P Cattini (Crown)
Mr A Haesler SC (Offender)

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

R A Hulme J

16 October 2009

2009/11027 R v Justin Paul COX
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Justin Paul COX, has pleaded guilty to the murder of Samuel Connolly in the early hours of 2 January 2009 at Narooma. In sentencing him for that offence he has asked that I take into account that earlier on the same night he assaulted and inflicted actual bodily harm upon Mr Connolly.

2 The offender was born on 20 December 1982 at Penrith. He lived in that area with his family until they moved to Narooma when he was about 7 years of age. He was educated at Werrington County Primary School and then Narooma Public School and Narooma High School. He experienced learning difficulties, perhaps because of dyslexia, and exhibited behavioural problems at school. He was disruptive, got involved in fights, was defiant of teachers and, in his last two years, his attendance was infrequent. He was expelled in Year 9 after a physical fight with a teacher and throwing a table at the principal.

3 He then had a variety of jobs, mainly in retail stores. He met his partner, Rebecca Graham in 2003. She had two children from a previous relationship, a son born in 2001 and a younger daughter. Together they had a son born in 2005 and a daughter born in 2008.

4 Around the time he met Rebecca he commenced working with his father in a waste management business. Initially this was part-time but eventually became full-time. He acquired skills operating machinery and driving bulldozers and front end loaders. This was work he found satisfying and he was well remunerated.

5 Rebecca’s son from her previous relationship was killed in an accident along with a playmate in 2006. Initially the couple tried to continue their lives but difficulties in the relationship arose from the grief and stress they undoubtedly experienced. They blamed themselves and each other. They argued more frequently. Rebecca ended up leaving him in early 2007 when she moved to Sydney. He responded with a serious suicide attempt. He remained on the South Coast with his employment in the waste management business but had developed an amphetamine habit and was drinking heavily. Thereafter he held a…

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 Cox

Details

AGLC: R v Cox [2009] NSWSC 1067
Case: [2009] NSWSC 1067
Decision Date: 16 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cox involved the respondent being charged with the murder of an individual in Victoria. Cox had severely beaten the deceased with a large wrench, leading to the deceased's death. The attack was driven by Cox's intoxication and belief that the deceased was a paedophile. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Cox, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence. The primary legal issue was to decide whether the sentence imposed by the County Court was adequate, and if not, what the appropriate sentence should be.

The County Court had sentenced Cox to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of twelve years, finding that the offence was just below mid-range seriousness. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing this decision and determining if the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The Court found that while the County Court had properly considered relevant factors, it had not adequately addressed the specific circumstances surrounding the offence, particularly Cox's intoxication and mistaken belief regarding the deceased. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was too lenient given the severe nature of the attack and the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal ordered that the County Court's sentence be set aside and that Cox be re-sentenced. It was emphasised that the new sentence should reflect the severity of the crime and appropriately account for the mitigating factors present. The Court of Appeal also noted that the offender's intoxication, while a mitigating factor, did not negate the gravity of the actions taken. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal highlighted the importance of ensuring that sentences for such serious offences reflect the true nature and impact of the crime.

Orders