R v Gina Kennedy (a pseudonym) - [2022] NSWSC 1499

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gina Kennedy (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWSC 1499
Hearing dates: 28 October 2022
Date of orders: 4 November 2022
Decision date: 04 November 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
Gina Kennedy, for the offence of murder you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 27 years with a non-parole period of 19 years. That sentence is to date from 13 September 2020 and expire on 12 September 2047. The non-parole period will expire on 12 September 2039.

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – murder – killing of estranged husband with axe in home – grave case of murder – relationship marred by domestic violence – motivation of jealousy and revenge – planning – guilty plea – remorse

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), 18(1)(a)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
AB v R [2014] NSWCCA 339
Archer v R [2017] NSWCCA 151
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
CR v R [2020] NSWCCA 289
Filippou v the Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77
Markarian v the Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Pritchard v R [2022] NSWCCA 130
Quinn v R [2018] NSWCCA 297
R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487
R v Baleinapuka [2022] NSWSC 485
R v Cherry [2017] NSWCCA 150
R v Da Silva [2016] NSWSC 1214
R v Darbanou [2018] NSWSC 1672
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Haydar(No 4) [2017] NSWSC 615
R v June Oh Seo [2019] NSWSC 639
R v Latu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 951
R v Lewis [2001] NSWCCA 448
R v Lloyd [2022] NSWSC 906
R v Newman [2004] NSWCCA 102
R v Quinn (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1699
R v Ryan (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 1629
R v Wood [2018] NSWSC 1855
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Wang v R [2021] NSWCCA 282
Wood v R [2019] NSWCCA 309

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Gina Kennedy (a pseudonym) (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms G Steedman (Crown)
Ms B O’Reilly (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid (NSW)

File Number(s): 2020/00266036
Publication restriction: Nil.

remarks on sentence

On 12 September 2020, the offender[1] purchased an axe from Bunnings and searched online as how to kill someone with it. Either late that night or the following morning, she killed her estranged husband, Joseph, by inflicting ten “chop style” injuries to his head with the axe. She handed herself into police at St Marys Police Station at 12.15pm on 13 September 2022. She was arrested and charged with murder and remanded in custody where she has remained since that time. The couple had four young daughters now aged between eight and 11 years who are left without a father and with their mother facing a lengthy prison…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Gina Kennedy (a pseudonym) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWSC 1499
Decision Date: 04 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Gina Kennedy, the defendant stood accused of the murder of her estranged husband. The killing occurred in their home and involved the use of an axe. Kennedy, represented by counsel, entered a guilty plea to the charge of murder. The nature of the dispute centred on the circumstances surrounding the fatal attack and the appropriate sentence to be imposed. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the State, which was tasked with determining the appropriate punishment for Kennedy's actions.

The legal issues before the court included the classification of the murder as a grave case, considering the relationship between the parties, which had been characterised by domestic violence. The court also needed to assess the motivation behind the killing, which appeared to be driven by jealousy and revenge. Furthermore, the court had to consider the level of planning involved in the commission of the crime and whether there were any mitigating factors, such as remorse, that could influence the sentencing decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the history of domestic violence between the parties, which significantly impacted the circumstances of the offence. The court found that the murder was indeed a grave case due to the premeditated nature of the crime and the use of a weapon. The motivation behind the killing was determined to be fuelled by feelings of jealousy and revenge, which further underscored the gravity of the offence. Despite the lack of remorse being a significant factor, the court took into account the guilty plea, which was seen as an acknowledgment of responsibility. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime while also considering the mitigating factors present in the case.

The final orders of the court were that Gina Kennedy be sentenced to imprisonment for a term to be determined, taking into account the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors present. The court's decision was guided by the principles of justice and proportionality, ensuring that the sentence appropriately reflected the nature and circumstances of the offence.

Orders