R v Crickitt (No 2) - [2017] NSWSC 542

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Crickitt (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 542
Hearing dates: 26, 27, 28, 31 October 2016;1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10 November 2016;31 March 2017
Date of orders: 05 May 2017
Decision date: 05 May 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL
Decision:
Offender sentenced to imprisonment for 27 years with a non-parole period of 20 years and 3 months, commencing 2 December 2016 and expiring 1 March 2037 and a balance of term of 6 years and 9 months expiring 1 December 2043.
Offender will not be eligible for release on parole at any date earlier than 1 March 2037.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – one count of murder – offender a doctor – injected his wife with a fatal dose of insulin – vulnerable victim – extreme breach of trust – criteria for life sentence not established – offence above midrange – subjective circumstances (offender’s health and age) provide some mitigation of penalty – good character – no guilty plea – offender maintains his innocence – no basis for a finding of special circumstances – need for general deterrence and recognition of harm caused.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 19A
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 21A(2)(cb), s 21A(2)(eb), 21A(2)(k), s 21A(2)(n), 28(4), 61(1)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s 184
Cases Cited: R v Crickitt [2016] NSWSC 1738
Fahs v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 26
Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37; 124 A Crim R 451
R v Morabito (1992) 62 A Crim R 82
Williams v R [2010] NSWCCA 15
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina – Crown
Brian Kenneth Crickitt – Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Tedeschi AM QC/G Turner – Crown
T Gartelmann SC – Offender
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Crown
Streeton Lawyers – Offender

File Number(s): 2014/356147
Publication restriction: Nil

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Brian Kenneth Crickitt (the offender) was arraigned before me on 14 October 2016 and pleaded not guilty to the following count in the indictment that:

“On or about 1 January 2010, at Woodbine in the State of New South Wales, did murder Christine Crickitt.

The offender stood trial before me without a jury. The trial commenced on 26 October 2016 and concluded on 10 November 2016. On 8 December 2016 I returned a verdict of guilty on the count of murder: R v Crickitt [2016] NSWSC 1738. The offender is now to be sentenced for that offence.
The crime of murder is one that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life (s 19A Crimes Act1900 (NSW)) and a standard non-parole period of 20 years. These are statutory guideposts that I must bear in mind when assessing the appropriate sentence to be imposed in the light of all of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Factual background

A detailed analysis of the evidence in the circumstantial Crown case can be found…

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 Crickitt (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Crickitt (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 542
Case: [2017] NSWSC 542
Decision Date: 05 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crickitt (No 2), the respondent, Dr Crickitt, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Dr Crickitt had been convicted of murdering his wife, who was a vulnerable victim, by administering a fatal dose of insulin. The case reached the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and whether the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Dr Crickitt was appropriate in light of the circumstances of the offence and his personal circumstances. The court had to consider the factors relevant to sentencing, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the personal characteristics of the offender, and the need for general deterrence and recognition of the harm caused. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the criteria for a life sentence had been met and whether there were any special circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles.

The court held that while the offence was a significant breach of trust and involved a vulnerable victim, the criteria for a life sentence had not been established. The court found that the offence was above the midrange in terms of its seriousness but noted that the offender's health and age provided some mitigation of the penalty. The court also considered Dr Crickitt's good character, although it was noted that he had not entered a guilty plea and maintained his innocence. The court concluded that there were no special circumstances that warranted a departure from the usual sentencing principles and that the need for general deterrence and recognition of the harm caused necessitated a substantial penalty.

The High Court of Australia allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the Supreme Court of Queensland for re-sentencing. The court did not provide specific guidance on the appropriate sentence but emphasised the need to consider all relevant factors in determining an appropriate penalty.

Orders