On counts 1 to 11 inclusive on the indictment, convicted of the murders of Dorothy Sterling, Dorothy Wu, Alma Smith, Lola Bennett, Ella Wood, Urbana Alipio, Caesar Galea, Doris Becke, Reginald Willaim Green, Verna Webeck and Neeltje Valkay. On each count, you are sentenced to life imprisonment, commencing 18 November 2011.
On counts 12 to 19 inclusive on the indictment, convicted of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to Marina Alegado, Emmanuela Cachia, Marisa Iaconis, Lesley Trimmer, Romulo Feliciano, Thelma Hodgson-Budd, Anello D'Urso and Bithanta Muneshwar. On counts 12, 13, 14 and 15, sentenced to eight (8) years imprisonment to date from 18 November 2011, expiring 17 November 2019, with a non parole period of six (6) years expiring 17 November 2017. On counts 16, 17, 18 and 19, you are sentenced to eight (8) years imprisonment to date from 18 November 2015, expiring 17 November 2023, with a non parole period of six (6) years expiring 17 November 2021.
On each count of Larceny as a Clerk, convicted and sentenced to a fixed term of five (5) years to date from 18 November 2011, expiring 17 November 2016.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence– murder – reckless indifference – worst case category - life imprisonment – application of s 61(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – recklessly cause grievous bodily harm – worst case category CRIMINAL LAW– Sentence – larceny as a clerk – theft of prescription drugs
Counsel M Tedeschi QC - (Crown) M Ierace SC - (Offender) Solicitors Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - (Crown) Legal Aid NSW - (Offender)
File Number(s):
2011/370574
SENTENCE
The offender, Roger Dean, pleaded guilty on 27 May 2013 to eleven counts of murder (s 18 Crimes Act 1900), by way of reckless indifference to human life, and eight counts of recklessly cause grievous bodily harm…
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 Dean
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Dean [2013] NSWSC 1027
Case
[2013] NSWSC 1027
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Dean, the defendant was convicted of multiple criminal offences, including murder, recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, and larceny as a clerk for the theft of prescription drugs. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentences for each of the defendant's convictions, particularly focusing on the severity of the crimes committed and the principles of sentencing under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, including the defendant's culpability and the impact of his actions on the victims. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the murder conviction warranted a sentence within the worst-case category, which would result in a life sentence, and whether the other offences warranted significant penalties commensurate with their severity. The court also needed to weigh the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in fashioning the sentences.
In its reasoning, the court found that the defendant's actions demonstrated a high degree of recklessness and indifference to human life, justifying the classification of the murder as a worst-case scenario. The court emphasised the need to protect society and to impose a sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes. After considering all relevant factors, the court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment for the murder, with a non-parole period to be determined at a later date. For the other offences, the court imposed additional sentences, recognising the serious nature of the defendant's criminal conduct.
The final orders of the court included the imposition of life imprisonment for the murder conviction, with the specifics of the non-parole period to be determined in due course, and additional penalties for the other offences. The court's decision highlighted the importance of applying the principles of sentencing in a manner that reflects the seriousness of the crimes and the need to balance the interests of justice, society, and the defendant.