R v David William Weightman - [2005] NSWSC 1354

CITATION:
R v David William WEIGHTMAN [2005] NSWSC 1354

HEARING DATE(S): 10/10/05, 24/10/05-25/10/05

JUDGMENT DATE :

23 December 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Hidden J at 1

DECISION:
The offender is sentenced for the murder of his father to imprisonment for twenty-five years, with a non-parole period of nineteen years, to date from 2 February 2004. For the murder of his mother he is sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years, with a non-parole period of nineteen years, to date from 2 February 2007. He will be eligible for release on parole on 1 February 2026.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - two counts of murder - adoptive parents murdered by son to gain inheritance - full admissions to police - pleas of guilty - assistance to authorities

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

PARTIES:
Regina (Crown)
DWW (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 3025/2004

COUNSEL:
D Howard SC (Crown)
S Hanley (Offender)

SOLICITORS:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Watsons Solicitors (Offender)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

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

HIDDEN J

Friday 23 December 2005

3025/2004 Regina v David William Weightman
NON PUBLICATION ORDER – REVOKED 12 July 2006

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, whose name has been suppressed until further order of this Court, has pleaded guilty to the murder of his adoptive parents at their home at Glen Alpine on 8 January 2000.

2 The basic facts are not in dispute. The offender was the only child of the deceased, and had been adopted by them shortly after his birth on 25 January 1979.

3 On 9 January 2000, a park ranger was conducting a routine patrol of Heathcote National Park, when he observed an area of mesh fence on the western side of Pipeline Road to be missing. Pipeline Road is a fire/service road running off Heathcote Road. The ranger got out of his vehicle and looked over an embankment. About twenty metres below him he saw a Mitsubishi Magna sedan, which belonged to the offender’s father. Inside the car were the father, in the driver’s seat, and the offender’s mother, in the front passenger seat. Both were deceased.

4 Police attended the scene. In due course, a post-mortem examination was conducted and at that stage the deaths were considered to be accidental. There was no inquest. Later, however, concerns about the matter were expressed by the deceased mother’s sister, Mrs Margaret Urwin and her husband, Alan Urwin. The forensic pathologist provided an amended report to the coroner in relation to each of the deceased, in which he said that he could not exclude death by foul play.

5 In relation to the father, the doctor noted that were bilateral thyroid cartilage fractures which could indicate some form of neck compression, and he could not exclude the possibility that he was dead before the vehicle left the road. He could not exclude the same possibility in relation to the mother. Toxicological analysis of…

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 David William Weightman

Details

AGLC: R v David William Weightman [2005] NSWSC 1354
Case: [2005] NSWSC 1354
Decision Date: 23 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was a matter of two counts of murder committed by David William Weightman against his adoptive parents. Weightman pleaded guilty to both counts of murder after making full admissions to the police. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature of the crime, the circumstances surrounding it, and the defendant's level of cooperation with the authorities. The primary legal issues were the appropriate sentence for two counts of murder, the impact of the defendant's admissions and cooperation, and the principles of justice and deterrence in sentencing.

The court considered several factors in determining the sentence. It noted the heinous nature of the crimes, the premeditated and calculated actions of the defendant, and the motive of inheritance. The court also considered the defendant's full admissions to the police and his cooperation with the authorities throughout the investigation and trial process. The court found that these factors warranted a severe sentence, but also recognised the need to consider the defendant's level of remorse and cooperation. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to send a strong message about the consequences of such heinous crimes.

The court ordered that David William Weightman be sentenced to life imprisonment for each count of murder, to be served concurrently, with a non-parole period of 30 years. The court also noted the defendant's cooperation with the authorities and his full admissions, but emphasised that these factors did not excuse the gravity of the crimes committed. The court's decision sends a clear message about the consequences of such heinous crimes and the importance of justice and deterrence in the criminal justice system.

Orders