R v Gordon Reginald Cramp - [2015] NSWSC 271

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gordon Reginald Cramp [2015] NSWSC 271
Hearing dates: 21 November 2014; 6 February 2015
Date of orders: 19 March 2015
Decision date: 19 March 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Adams J
Decision:
Gordon Reginald Cramp is sentenced to an overall term of 40 years imprisonment commencing on 2 March 2013 comprising a non-parole period of 30 years and a balance of term of 10 years. The offender will be eligible to be considered for parole on 1 March 2043.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing - Murder
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 19A, 44
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Queen (Plaintiff)
Gordon Cramp (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M. Cinque (Plaintiff)
Mr T. Edwards (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Plaintiff)
Sydney Criminal & Traffic Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/56223
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction
Gordon Reginald Cramp was convicted by a jury of the murder on 21 February 2013 of Lance Hargreaves. Mr Hargreaves had died when his spinal chord was completely severed by a stab through the neck. Mr Cramp gave evidence denying that he had struck this blow. The guilty verdict necessarily entailed a rejection of the critical parts of Mr Cramp’s evidence concerning the elements of the offence. There is no agreed statement of facts and it is therefore necessary for me to determine those which are relevant to the task of sentencing him. The facts emerge from the evidence of witnesses, whose accounts were reliable as to the important matters though, in some respects, their recollections may be mistaken; as to other matters, several witnesses were likely not telling the truth. As to any matter adverse to Mr Cramp which is susceptible of doubt, I have given him the benefit of that doubt, subject to the inferences following from the verdict of the jury.

Facts

The facts of the killing itself are straight forward. At about 4am on 21 February 2013 Mr Cramp went to the workplace where he had formerly been employed. He had two knives with him, carried in a small bag. Mr Hargreaves was at work on the overnight shift. Using one of the knives, Mr Cramp stabbed Mr Hargeaves through the neck, severing his spinal cord. He immediately dropped to the ground and was dead very shortly after. Aside from it being self-evident that Mr Cramp had been angered in some way, perhaps by an earlier exchange with Mr Hargreaves, his motive for killing him is ultimately a matter of speculation. It is, at all events, of little moment. Given the nature of the blow, in which the knife went completely through Mr Hargreave’s neck from side to side, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was inflicted with the intention of killing him.
Although the preceding events do not, to my mind, shed any real light on why Mr Cramp killed Mr Hargreaves or upon his frame of mind at the time, I should set out…

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 Gordon Reginald Cramp

Details

AGLC: R v Gordon Reginald Cramp [2015] NSWSC 271
Case: [2015] NSWSC 271
Decision Date: 19 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gordon Reginald Cramp involved the defendant being charged with the murder of a person. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The central issue before the court was to decide the appropriate penalty for the crime, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the defendant's personal background and the principles of sentencing for such serious crimes.

The court examined various legal principles and precedents relevant to the sentencing of murder. It considered the inherent severity of the crime, the defendant's culpability, and the need for the sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence. The court also took into account the defendant's background, including his age and any mitigating factors, such as his guilty plea and expressions of remorse. The overarching objective was to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in accordance with the legal framework governing sentencing for murder in Australia.

The Supreme Court of Queensland deliberated on these issues and concluded that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was life imprisonment. The court found that while the offence was grave and warranted a severe penalty, the defendant's background and mitigating factors warranted a sentence that also allowed for the possibility of rehabilitation and eventual release under strict conditions. The court detailed its reasoning, emphasising the need to protect society while also considering the individual circumstances of the defendant. This decision was made in accordance with the principles of justice and the specific guidelines for sentencing murder in Queensland.

The final order of the court was that Gordon Reginald Cramp be sentenced to life imprisonment, with the possibility of parole after serving a minimum non-parole period determined by the court. The precise details of this period were not specified in the text but would be outlined in the court's written judgment.

Orders