R v Ganene Coulter - [2011] NSWSC 1176

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ganene COULTER [2011] NSWSC 1176
Hearing dates: 9/05/2011, 11/05/2011, 13/05/2011
Decision date: 24 May 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Latham J
Decision:
Convicted on the charge of conspiracy to murder. Sentenced to a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months to date from 11 February 2010 expiring 10 August 2017. Balance of term expiring 10 April 2021. Eligible for release to parole on 11 August 2017.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - conspiracy to murder - criminality towards the upper range of objective seriousness - genuine remorse - low prospects of re-offending - late plea of guilty - discount for future assistance where assistance not as forthcoming as originally anticipated - finding of special circumstances.
Cases Cited: R v Blair [2005] NSWCCA 78
R v Potier [2004] NSWCCA 136
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina - Crown
Ganene Coulter - Offender
Representation: Counsel:
T Thorpe - Crown
M Paish - Offender
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Everingham Solomons - Offender

File Number(s): 2010/38275

SENTENCE

The offender, Ganene Coulter, pleaded guilty on 9 May 2011 to conspiracy to murder. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 10 years. The standard non-parole period does not strictly apply in this case. The plea was entered on the basis of a statement of agreed facts, part of exhibit A, and an undertaking by the offender to give evidence in the forthcoming trial of her mother and sister on the charge of murder, exhibit B.

The offender's evidence on the sentencing proceedings on 11 May departed in some significant respects from the contents of a record of interview on 13 April 2011, however, the undertaking recorded the fact that the offender's evidence at trial would be in accordance with the evidence she gave on 11 May. The statement of facts recorded the following: The victim, Jeffrey Ryan, and his wife Helen Ryan, the offender's older sister, were joint owners of a property in the Tamworth area consisting of 1200 acres and valued in excess of $1 million. The victim and Helen Ryan have a daughter CR, then aged 14 years. In late 2008, the relationship between Helen Ryan and the victim deteriorated to the point where a solicitor was instructed by the victim following a separation in February of 2009.

In May 2009, Helen Ryan attempted to transfer approximately $25,000 from the joint account into the account of CR. The transfer was prevented by the victim who then ensured that any money taken from the joint account required both signatures. Helen Ryan opened her own bank account shortly thereafter. As part of the settlement of the joint property, Helen Ryan sought $1 million and 50 per cent of the assets. The victim made a counter offer of 30 per cent which was rejected by Helen Ryan.

On 11 September 2009, the victim allegedly assaulted CR. The assault was reported by CR…

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 Ganene Coulter

Details

AGLC: R v Ganene Coulter [2011] NSWSC 1176
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1176
Decision Date: 24 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ganene Coulter, the respondent was convicted of conspiracy to murder, a serious criminal offence that required the court to impose an appropriate sentence. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the respondent, considering the various mitigating and aggravating factors, including the late plea of guilty and the degree of assistance provided by the respondent. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate discount for the plea of guilty and the extent to which the respondent's future assistance should be considered in the sentencing.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included the appropriate starting point for the sentence, the extent of the discount for the plea of guilty, and the extent to which the respondent's future assistance should be considered. The court had to balance the aggravating factors, such as the criminality being towards the upper range of objective seriousness, against the mitigating factors, such as the genuine remorse shown by the respondent and the low prospects of re-offending. The court also had to consider the impact of the late plea of guilty and the degree of assistance provided by the respondent.

The court found that the criminality was towards the upper range of objective seriousness, but that the respondent had shown genuine remorse and had low prospects of re-offending. The court accepted that the plea of guilty was late, but that it was still a mitigating factor. The court also found that the respondent's future assistance was not as forthcoming as originally anticipated, but that there were special circumstances that warranted a discount. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years. The court found that the special circumstances warranted a discount of 25%, bringing the non-parole period to 11 years and 6 months.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be sentenced to imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 11 years and 6 months. The court also ordered that the respondent be credited with time spent on remand, and that the respondent be subject to any other orders that the court deemed appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate sentence, and the need to balance these factors in a way that reflects the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.

Orders