R v Dannevig, Christopher James - [2012] NSWSC 1013

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DANNEVIG, Christopher James [2012] NSWSC 1013
Hearing dates: 3 August 2012
Decision date: 31 August 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hall J
Decision:
A term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 years, which is to commence on 8 August 2011 and is to expire on 7 August 2032.
A balance of term of 7 years is to commence on 6 August 2032 and is to expire on 5 August 2039.
The earliest date of eligibility for release to parole is 7 August 2032.

Catchwords: CRIME - Sentencing for offence or murder - plea of guilty - young offender principles - objective seriousness of offence - victim befriended on-line pursuant to a ruse - issue of whether offence pre-planned - vulnerable victim murdered in remote area - aggravating and mitigating factors - offender had mild intellectual disability - offender demonstrated somewhat sophisticated capacity to employ strategy to groom victim - prior conviction for violent offence, on conditional liberty at time of offence - longer non-parole period than standard non-parole period imposed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Fardon v Attorney General for the State of Queensland [2004] HCA 46; (2004) 223 CLR 575
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v AEM & Ors [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
R v Harrison (1997) 93 A Crim R 314
R v Hill (1981) 3 A Crim R 397
R v Kilmore (NSWCCA, 13 August 1998, unreported)
R v Low (1991) 57 A Crim R 8
R v MacDonald (NSWCCA, 12 December 1995, unreported)
R v Previteria (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Skura [2004] VSCA 53
R v SLD [2003] NSWCCA 310; (2003) 58 NSWLR 589
Veen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Wilson v The Queen [1992] HCA 31; (1992) 174 CLR 313
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Christopher James Dannevig (offender)
Representation: Mr C Maxwell QC (for the Crown)
Mr P Young SC and Ms N Mikhaiel (for the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (for the Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (for the offender)

File Number(s): 2010/120727

Judgment

Christopher James Dannevig pleads guilty to the murder of Nona Belomesoff on 12 May 2010. The maximum sentence for the crime of murder is imprisonment for life. A standard non-parole period has been prescribed of 20 years imprisonment. These two legislative guideposts are to be borne in mind when the Court comes to a consideration of the appropriate penalty, having regard to the objective circumstances of the offence and the subjective features of the offender: Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120. The standard non-parole period does not have determinative significance in sentencing the offender: Muldrock at…

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 Dannevig, Christopher James

Details

AGLC: R v Dannevig, Christopher James [2012] NSWSC 1013
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1013
Decision Date: 31 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the defendant, Christopher James Dannevig, who pleaded guilty to the murder of a vulnerable victim. The offence was particularly heinous, as the victim was lured and killed following an online ruse. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the offence, considering the principles of young offender sentencing, the objective seriousness of the crime, and various mitigating and aggravating factors.

The legal issues before the court included the extent to which the offence was pre-planned and the degree of sophistication demonstrated by the offender. Given the young age of the defendant and his mild intellectual disability, the court needed to weigh these factors against the gravity of the crime, which involved a vulnerable victim being murdered in a remote area. The court also had to consider the defendant's prior conviction for a violent offence and the fact that he was on conditional liberty at the time of the offence.

The court found that while the offender had a mild intellectual disability, he demonstrated a sophisticated capacity to employ a strategy to groom the victim. The pre-meditation and the objective seriousness of the offence warranted a longer non-parole period than the standard. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected both the aggravating and mitigating factors, resulting in a non-parole period longer than the standard. The final orders of the court included the sentencing of Christopher James Dannevig to a term of imprisonment with a specified non-parole period.

Orders