R v Gonzales - [2004] NSWSC 822

CITATION: Regina v Gonzales [2004] NSWSC 822

HEARING DATE(S): 27/08/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1

DECISION: Three sentences of life imprisonment commencing on 13 June 2002

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

CASES CITED: R v Arthurell: unreported, NSWSC 3/10/1997
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Twala: unreported, NSWCCA 4/11/1994
R v Valera [2002] NSWCCA 50
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 77 ALJR 872

PARTIES :
Regina v Sef Gonzales

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70068/03

COUNSEL: M Tedeschi QC/S Huggett - Crown
W Terracine SC/P Massey - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: Ms F Rowbotham - Crown
P Townsend - Prisoner

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

Friday 17 September 2004

70068/03 REGINA v SEF GONZALES
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 20 May 2004 at the conclusion of a trial at which I presided the jury found the prisoner Sef Gonzales guilty of the three counts of murder with which he had been charged, that on 10 July 2001 at North Ryde he had murdered Clodine Gonzales, Mary Loiva Josephine Gonzales and Teddy Gonzales. Clodine Gonzales was the prisoner’s sister and his only sibling. She had had her eighteenth birthday on 9 July 2001, the day before the murders. Mary Loiva Josephine Gonzales was the prisoner’s mother and Teddy Gonzales was the prisoner’s father.

2 After the jury returned their verdicts of guilty on 20 May 2004, I was informed by the Crown prosecutor and counsel for the prisoner at the trial that 27 August would be a date suitable to the parties for the hearing of the proceedings on sentence. I was informed that an adjournment of that length would enable certain evidence including a pre-sentence report about the prisoner to be obtained. I stood over the proceedings on sentence to 27 August.

3 The hearing of the proceedings on sentence took place on 27 August. In the proceedings on sentence the Crown tendered and I admitted into evidence a criminal history of the prisoner which showed that prior to the three convictions for murder he had had no criminal convictions and a pre-sentence report dated 25 August 2004 prepared by Ms Karen Langdon the Unit Leader of the Parole Unit at the Silverwater Correctional Centre.

4 At the hearing of the proceedings on sentence I received victim impact statements by Emily Luna a sister of Mrs Mary Gonzales, Annie Paraan another sister of Mrs Mary Gonzales and Amelita Claridades the mother of Mrs Mary Gonzales. A representative of these members of a primary victim’s immediate family read out these victim impact statements to the Court. I do not doubt that the murders of Mrs Gonzales and the other two victims have had a severe impact on these family members. However, in…

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 Gonzales

Details

AGLC: Regina v Gonzales [2004] NSWSC 822
Case: [2004] NSWSC 822
Decision Date: 17 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Gonzales involved the sentencing of Sef Gonzales, who was found guilty of murdering his parents and sister. The Supreme Court of New South Wales was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for Gonzales, who had been convicted of three counts of murder. The court considered various legal principles, including the objective heinousness of the crimes and the subjective circumstances of the offender. The court found that the murders were premeditated, involved extreme violence, and were motivated by financial gain and a desire to avoid disciplinary action from his parents. Gonzales' attempts to mislead the investigation and his lack of remorse further exacerbated the severity of his crimes. Despite Gonzales' youth and lack of a criminal history, the court concluded that the heinous nature of the crimes warranted sentences of life imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently. The sentences were set to commence from the date of Gonzales' arrest.

Orders