R v Fuller - [2016] NSWSC 815

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Fuller [2016] NSWSC 815
Hearing dates: 19 April 2016
Date of orders: 14 June 2016
Decision date: 14 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:
(1) Conviction recorded;

(2) Form 1 offences taken into account;
(3) Sentence imposed of 24 and a half years’ imprisonment, commencing 4 March 2015 and concluding 3 September 2039, with a non-parole period of 17 years, concluding 3 March 2032.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder – early guilty plea – adverse psychologist’s report – youth of offender – sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
R v Robinson [2000] NSWSC 972
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Owen Junior Fuller (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Pincott (Crown)
E Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/380993

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The offender, Owen Junior Fuller, has pleaded guilty to murder having killed Corey Mark Power. The Court must sentence him.
The offence of murder is the worst offence in the criminal calendar carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment and a standard non parole period of 20 years. The imposition of a life sentence is for those murders that are within the worst category of murder and in which the offence “is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition” of such a sentence.

Facts

There are agreed facts. Many deal with the deceased in a detail that, while relevant to background in order that the Court understand the issues, are unnecessary to repeat.
The deceased was 33 years of age at the time of his death, the offender was just over 18 years of age.
Briefly stated, on 7 August 2013, the offender and another broke into premises and stole a vehicle and some tools. The two co-offenders drove to an address and rang the deceased to leave the tools with him. The deceased told the offender and his accomplice in the robbery to burn the motor vehicle.
The deceased drove to Canberra from Young and sold the tools, then returning to Young. He was at the time, it seems, living in Canberra. There is a suggestion that the offender and his robbery accomplice were never paid for the tools and the deceased owed them $600.
From 25 August 2013, the deceased was staying in Young at the house of persons who were mutual acquaintances of the deceased and the offender. The deceased was consuming drugs.
In the meantime, the offender and his robbery accomplice were exchanging text messages expressing anger and resentment toward the deceased and his failure to pay the money said to be owed. The messages became increasingly hostile towards the deceased and disclosed increasing anger. Reference was made to assaulting the deceased. They then discussed with each other the fact that…

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 Fuller

Details

AGLC: R v Fuller [2016] NSWSC 815
Case: [2016] NSWSC 815
Decision Date: 14 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Fuller, the accused faced charges of murder, which resulted in a fatal outcome. The matter was brought before the court following an early guilty plea entered by the defendant. A complicating factor in the sentencing process was an adverse psychologist's report which highlighted certain behavioural issues. The youth of the offender was also considered to be a mitigating factor. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the gravity of the offence, the mitigating circumstances, and the statutory requirements governing sentencing.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the appropriate weight to be given to the defendant's early guilty plea, the relevance and impact of the psychologist's report, and the consideration of the defendant's youth. Additionally, the court had to ensure that the sentence complied with the overarching principles of sentencing, including deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and proportionality. The court was required to evaluate these factors in the context of the specific circumstances of the case to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously weighed the mitigating factors, including the early guilty plea and the youth of the offender, against the severity of the crime committed. The adverse psychologist's report was considered, but not determinative, in the overall sentencing calculus. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offence while also taking into account the mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence that was deemed to be proportionate to the crime, while also considering the need for rehabilitation and deterrence.

Orders