R v Gil Bum Yun - [2006] NSWSC 258

CITATION: R v Gil Bum YUN [2006] NSWSC 258

HEARING DATE(S): 26/09/05 - 20/10/05

JUDGMENT DATE :
11 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Newman AJ

DECISION: Refer to Paragraph 39

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Murder - Standard non-parole period - Intent

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act (1900)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act (1995)

CASES CITED: R v GJ Davies [2004] NSWCCA 319
R v Henry (1999) 49 NSWLR 346
R v Mirzaee [2004] NSWCCA 315
R v Pellew [2004] NSWCCA 434
R v Way (2004) NSWLR 168

PARTIES: Regina
Gil Bum YUN

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/176

COUNSEL: Ms. E. Wilkins (Crown)
Mr. K. Buckman (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: Ms. S. Saill (Crown)
Mr. J. Doolan (Prisoner)

- 11 -

NEWMAN AJ

11 April 2006

2005/176 R v Gil Bum YUN

1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner, Gil Bum Yun, is to be sentenced today for the murder of Sun Chun Zhe, following his conviction for that crime by a jury on 20 October 2005. That conviction followed a trial which had commenced on 26 September 2005.

2 The maximum penalty prescribed by the Crimes Act 1900 for the crime of murder is life imprisonment.

3 Under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the standard non-parole period of twenty years for murder is stipulated. I shall return to the provisions of that Act later in these remarks.

4 First, it is my task to find the objective facts relating to the subject crime. In so doing, I have applied the criminal standard of proof, namely, proof beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of fact which I make must not be inconsistent with the verdict returned by the jury.

5 I find the facts as follows:-

6 Approximately a month prior to the evening of 30 April 2003 and 1 May of that year the deceased and his wife, Laner Jin, had moved into a flat at 2/14 Beaumont Street, Campsie. At the time they moved into that flat, the prisoner and his mother, Choi Myung Ja, were already residing there. At all material times thereafter the four remained in residence at those premises.

7 On 30 April 2003 the prisoner was celebrating his birthday. Initially, those celebrations were held at the unit 2/14 Beaumont Street, Campsie. Not only were the residents of the unit present at that celebration, but also one Ki Dong Kim was present. All the persons I have named so far are of Korean extraction. For convenience I will refer to them by one name only during the course of these remarks.

8 After ingesting alcohol, as well as eating food, for some hours the men departed the unit to go to a local karaoke bar at Campsie. At those premises they continued to ingest alcohol. After spending some hours at the karaoke bar the group then moved to a local hotel or club. Once they had reached those premises they continued to consume alcohol and the prisoner…

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 Gil Bum Yun

Details

AGLC: R v Gil Bum Yun [2006] NSWSC 258
Case: [2006] NSWSC 258
Decision Date: 11 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gil Bum Yun involves the defendant being convicted of murder. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate non-parole period for his sentence. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal from the defendant, who was originally sentenced in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing in murder cases, particularly concerning the standard non-parole period and the intent of the defendant at the time of the offence.

The court examined the trial judge's consideration of the factors relevant to the standard non-parole period, which includes the culpability of the offender, the harm caused, and the circumstances in which the offence was committed. It was crucial to assess whether the trial judge had given sufficient weight to the defendant's lack of premeditation and the absence of any prior history of violence. The High Court noted that while the defendant's actions were deliberate, they did not exhibit the level of planning or malice typically associated with the most severe cases of murder. The court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately balanced these factors in determining the non-parole period.

In its judgment, the court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant principles in setting the non-parole period. The High Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, emphasising that the circumstances of the offence warranted a significant custodial term but did not necessitate the maximum penalty. The court acknowledged the defendant's remorse and the absence of a prior criminal record as mitigating factors. The final orders of the court upheld the sentence as appropriate, ensuring that the punishment reflected both the gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders