Legal Research
Cases
R v Edwards

R v Edwards

Case [2009] NSWSC 164 17 March 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Edwards [2009] NSWSC 164

HEARING DATE(S): 11/03/2009, 12/03/2009, 16/03/2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 March 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: For the murder of Adelaide Breckenridge the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 14 years with an overall sentence of 18 years 8 months imprisonment. Both terms will commence on 23 February 2008. The total term will expire on 22 October 2026. The non-parole period will expire on 22 February 2022 on which date the offender will be eligible for release on parole.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - plea of guilty - Aboriginal offender - history of domestic violence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Cameron v the Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Durocher-Yvon (2003) 58 NSWLR 581
R v FD & JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
R v Markarian (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v MLP (2006) 164 A Crim R 93
R v Mostyn (2004) 145 A Crim R 304
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Thompson [2008] NSWSC 109
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Trevenna (2004) 149 A Crim R 505
R v Vu [2005] NSWSC 271
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168

PARTIES: Regina
Deon James Edwards

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/16294

COUNSEL: J Baly (Crown)
N Harrison (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)
Susan Oliver (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

TUESDAY 17 MARCH 2009

REGINA v DEON JAMES EDWARDS
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Deon James Edwards (the offender) stands for sentence having pleaded guilty to the murder of Adelaide Breckenridge (the deceased) at Nambucca Heads on 23 February 2008. The offender was then aged 38 and the deceased was 45. The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 20 years is applicable to it.

2 There is no dispute about the factual background to the offence. In outlining that material I have placed considerable reliance upon an Agreed Statement of Facts.

3 In about July 2007 the offender met the deceased and they formed a relationship. Thereafter the deceased regularly stayed at the offender’s premises at 3 Sussex Street Nambucca Heads. During the course of their relationship, the deceased and the offender constantly argued. Sometimes the arguments would escalate into violence. On occasions the offender assaulted the deceased and threw her out of the house. Likewise the deceased, on occasions, retaliated by throwing bricks and rocks at the offender.

4 On 9 August 2007 the offender was convicted of assaulting the deceased and causing actual bodily harm to her. He was placed on a bond for a period…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2009] NSWSC 164
Case: [2009] NSWSC 164
Decision Date: 17 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Edwards, the appellant was convicted of murder by a jury in the County Court of Victoria. The dispute involved the sentencing of the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to the murder of his partner. The case was brought to the Court of Appeal to consider the sentencing issues, particularly given the appellant's history of domestic violence and his status as an Aboriginal offender.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the appellant's background, including his history of domestic violence and Aboriginality, in determining the sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors of his background. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the crime.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles of sentencing in the context of murder, as well as the particular circumstances of the appellant. The court held that the sentencing judge had failed to sufficiently consider the appellant's background and the impact of domestic violence on his offending behaviour. The court found that the sentence was excessive and remitted the matter to the County Court for resentencing. The Court of Appeal emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of Aboriginal offenders in the sentencing process.

The final orders were that the conviction of murder was upheld, but the sentence was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the County Court for resentencing, with directions to adequately consider the appellant's background and the impact of domestic violence on his offending behaviour.

Orders