R v Debs - [2012] NSWSC 119

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v DEBS [2012] NSWSC 119
Hearing dates: Friday 24 February 2012
Decision date: 24 February 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: RS Hulme J
Decision:
Life imprisonment to commence on 12 December 2011

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - motive - worst case
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: DPP v Debs & Roberts [2003] VSC 30
R v Coulter [2005] NSWSC 101
R v Debs [2007] VSC 220
R v Debs [2008] VSCA 240
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Veen v R (No 2) [1987-1988] 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Bendali Michael DEBS (Offender)
Representation: Mr P Barrett (Crown)
Mr C Waterstreet (Offender)
S Kavanagh (Crown)
LawyersCorp Pty Limited (Offender)

File Number(s): 2009/285500

sentence

On 12 December 2011, Mr Debs was convicted by a jury of having, on 22 April 1995 at Minchinbury, murdered Donna Hicks. He now stands to be sentenced. I instruct myself that any conclusions at which I arrive in the process must be consistent with the verdict of the jury, that insofar as I make other findings adverse to the Prisoner and not necessarily implicit in the verdict, I must be satisfied of them beyond reasonable doubt, but that I am only required to be satisfied of matters in mitigation on the balance of probabilities.

I also wish to make clear that I am sentencing the Prisoner for the murder of Ms Hicks. Although I will in the course of these reasons refer to other of his offending, I take that into account not to punish him for it but solely insofar as it bears on issues relevant to a determination of the appropriate sentence for the death of Ms Hicks.

In the late evening of 21 April 1995, Ms Hicks was working on the Great Western Highway at Minchinbury as a prostitute. At about 8.30 am on the next morning, her naked body was found at the southern end of Archbold Road, Minchinbury in long grass between the entrances to two properties with boundaries to Archbold Road.

Blood on one of the entrance driveways and flattening of the grass between there and where the body was found indicated the body had been dragged to its final resting place. The deceased's panties were on the driveway but there were no other of her clothes in the vicinity.

In the days surrounding Ms Hicks' death, the Prisoner, who lived in Victoria, was shown to have been present in suburbs surrounding Minchinbury. He was then the owner of a dark blue Holden Rodeo utility which had four doors and a canopy over the open area at the rear. The vehicle's wheels were painted silver or some similar colour.

A witness, Mr Zanker, who had been with the deceased on the highway gave evidence of the deceased having been picked up late on the night of 21 April in a vehicle his description…

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 Debs

Details

AGLC: R v Debs [2012] NSWSC 119
Case: [2012] NSWSC 119
Decision Date: 24 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Debs, the defendant was convicted of murder and the matter was before the court for the purpose of sentencing. The defendant had been involved in the death of another individual, leading to a murder conviction. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature of the crime and any relevant mitigating factors. The case involved complex legal issues concerning the principles of sentencing for murder and the appropriate weight to be given to mitigating factors in the context of such a serious offence.

The court was required to assess the severity of the crime and the defendant's culpability, while also considering any mitigating factors that might be relevant. Key issues included the defendant's motive, the circumstances surrounding the offence, and the impact of the crime on the victim and their family. The court also had to evaluate the principle of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the punishment fit the crime while also considering the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court's task was to balance these considerations to arrive at a sentence that was both just and appropriate.

The court began by examining the gravity of the offence, noting the premeditated nature of the crime and the significant harm caused to the victim. It considered the defendant's lack of remorse and any aggravating factors that might increase the severity of the sentence. The court also assessed the mitigating factors presented, including the defendant's background and any personal circumstances that might warrant a reduced sentence. Ultimately, the court determined that the circumstances of the case warranted a severe sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the crime and the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system. The court imposed a lengthy prison sentence, reflecting the worst-case scenario in such matters.

Orders