R v Davis (No 2) - [2016] NSWSC 1785

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Davis (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1785
Hearing dates: 12 December 2016
Decision date: 13 December 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Imprisonment for a term of 40 years with a non-parole period of 30 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – two counts of murder – one of attempted murder – nursing assistant who injected aged care facility residents with insulin – intention to kill – vulnerable victims – extreme breach of trust – criteria for life sentence not established – offences well above midrange – subjective circumstances do little to mitigate penalty – good character – no guilty plea – where offender maintains his innocence – no basis for a finding of special circumstances – strong need for general deterrence and recognition of harm caused – aggregate sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 18, 19A, 27
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Davis [2016] NSWSC 1362
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Garry Steven Davis
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Mr C Watson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Ramsland Laidler

File Number(s): 2014/370401

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Garry Steven Davis ("the offender") was arraigned before me on 29 August 2016 and pleaded not guilty to the following counts in the indictment:

1. Murder of Ms Gwendolyne Fowler contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
2. Administer poison with intent to murder Ms Audrey Manuel contrary to s 27 of the Crimes Act.
3. Murder of Mr Ryan Kelly contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act.

The offender stood trial before me without a jury. On 28 September 2016 I returned verdicts of guilty on each count: R v Davis [2016] NSWSC 1362. The offender is now to be sentenced for each of those offences.
The crime of murder is one that carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life (s 19A of the Crimes Act) and a standard non-parole period of 20 years. The offence of administer a poison with intent to murder carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 10 years. These are the statutory guideposts that I must bear in mind when assessing the appropriate sentences to be imposed in the light of all of the relevant facts and circumstances.

Facts

A detailed analysis of the evidence in the circumstantial Crown case can be found within my reasons for verdict. My task now is to set out the facts upon which the offender is to be sentenced.

Overview

The offender was employed as a Team Leader Certificate IV Aged Care worker at SummitCare aged care facility at Wallsend. There are four wards at SummitCare which provide for up to 142 residents. The victim of each offence was a resident in the Mountview ward.
In short, the offender injected Ms Gwendolyne Fowler on 18 October 2013 and Ms Audrey Manuel…

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 Davis (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Davis (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1785
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1785
Decision Date: 13 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Davis (No 2), the appellant, Davis, was convicted of two counts of murder and one of attempted murder. The crimes were committed by injecting insulin into residents of an aged care facility. The case was heard in a higher court, which assessed the sentences imposed by a lower court. Davis, a nursing assistant, betrayed the trust of his vulnerable victims, leading to their deaths. The court's role was to determine if the sentences were appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the crimes.

The court was tasked with considering whether the criteria for a life sentence had been met and whether the aggregate sentence was excessive. The legal issues included the relevance of Davis's good character and his lack of a guilty plea, as well as the need for general deterrence and the recognition of the harm caused. The court needed to weigh the subjective circumstances of Davis, who maintained his innocence, against the objective factors of the crime, such as the extreme breach of trust and the vulnerability of the victims.

The court concluded that, while the crimes were of exceptional depravity and Davis's actions constituted an extreme breach of trust, the criteria for a life sentence had not been met. The court found that the subjective circumstances did little to mitigate the penalty. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the harm caused to the victims and their families. The court determined that an aggregate sentence was appropriate, reflecting the severity of the crimes and the need to uphold the rule of law. The sentences were upheld, with the court finding no basis for a finding of special circumstances.

The court ordered that the aggregate sentence be maintained, reflecting the gravity of the crimes and the need for general deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of recognising the harm caused to the victims and their families, while also considering Davis's good character and lack of a guilty plea. The final orders confirmed the sentences imposed by the lower court, with the court finding that the aggregate sentence was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders