R v Greentree - [2019] NSWSC 1642

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Greentree [2019] NSWSC 1642
Hearing dates: 19 August 2019
Date of orders: 29 November 2019
Decision date: 29 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Davies J
Decision:
For the offence of murder the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 14 years’ imprisonment commencing 13 August 2018 and expiring on 12 August 2032 with a balance of term of 4 years and 9 months expiring 12 May 2037

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – where the offender stabbed his de facto partner to death in their unit – offender unable to explain the motive for the offending – offender made frank admissions of guilt from the outset and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity – some evidence of cognitive deficits but no evidence of a causal link between those deficits and the offending – genuine remorse – low risk of reoffending and good prospects of rehabilitation – no criminal record – consideration given to general deterrence – age of offender taken into account on sentence – offender sentenced to non-parole period of 14 years’ imprisonment – balance of term of four years nine months
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Hiron v R [2007] NSWCCA 336
R v Do (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 512
R v Rogers (No 9) [2019] NSWSC 1622
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown
Alan Lloyd Greentree (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Lungo (Crown)
T Anderson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/248948
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

The offender pleaded guilty in the Local Court that on 13 August 2018 at Penshurst he did murder Dawn Butterworth. He now comes before me to be sentenced.
The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment. There is a standard non-parole period of 20 years’ imprisonment. Those matters are taken into account as guideposts in the sentencing exercise. The Crown says that it does not submit that the circumstances of the present killing warrant a sentence of life imprisonment. I agree that the circumstances of the killing do not warrant the imposition of a life sentence.

Background

The offender at the time of the killing was aged 62 years, having been born in 1956. The deceased was his de facto partner of about 30 years. She was then aged 67 having been born in 1951. They lived in a rental unit in Penshurst. They had no children together. The deceased had two adult daughters from a previous relationship with whom she had little or no contact. The tenancy of the unit, where they had lived for the previous five years, was in the offender’s name only.
The offender worked as a bartender at Kareela Golf Club from 14 October 2011 until his employment was terminated on 12 March 2018. It appears…

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 Greentree

Details

AGLC: R v Greentree [2019] NSWSC 1642
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1642
Decision Date: 29 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Greentree, was convicted of murdering his de facto partner, the deceased, by stabbing her in their unit. Greentree made frank admissions of guilt from the outset and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Greentree, considering various factors, including the nature of the offence, the offender's background, and the principles of sentencing. The court also had to weigh the evidence of cognitive deficits, the offender's remorse, the risk of reoffending, and the prospects for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court considered the need for general deterrence.

In determining the appropriate sentence, the court gave significant weight to the gravity of the offence, the offender's frank admissions, and the lack of any prior criminal record. The court also acknowledged some evidence of cognitive deficits but found no causal link between those deficits and the offending. The offender's genuine remorse and the low risk of reoffending, coupled with good prospects for rehabilitation, were considered mitigating factors. The court also took into account the age of the offender, who was younger at the time of the offence, and the need for general deterrence. After considering all these factors, the court sentenced Greentree to a non-parole period of 14 years’ imprisonment, with a balance of term of four years nine months.

The court's reasoning led to the conclusion that the sentence imposed was appropriate, balancing the need to protect the community, punish the offender, and provide a chance for rehabilitation. The court found that a lengthy custodial sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to deter others from committing similar crimes. However, the court also recognised the mitigating factors and the offender's potential for rehabilitation, leading to a sentence that aimed to achieve both punitive and rehabilitative objectives.

Orders