Legal Research
Cases
R v Harwood

R v Harwood

Case [2019] NSWSC 1695 29 November 2019

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Protection of Community

Remorse

General Deterrence

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Harwood [2019] NSWSC 1695
Hearing dates: 15 November 2019
Date of orders: 29 November 2019
Decision date: 29 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
Sentenced for murder to imprisonment for 16 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 12 years.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – guilty plea – sentence – murder – victim impact statement – objective features – objective seriousness – intention to kill – no premeditation and planning – high level violence – aggravation by weapon and victim’s home – mitigation – no criminal record – subjective features – no history of violence – protection of community – remorse – moral culpability and mental disorder – prospects of rehabilitation – general deterrence – maximum penalty – standard non-parole period – special circumstances – orders
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
BM v R [2019] NSWCCA 223
BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159
BR v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Charbaji v R [2019] NSWCCA 28
GG v R [2018] NSWCCA 280
Johnson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
McDowall v R [2019] NSWCCA 29
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Geddes (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 554
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R [2001] NSWCCA 37
R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91
R v Loveridge (2014) 243 A Crim R 31; [2014] NSWCCA 120
R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
Sumpton v R [2016] NSWCCA 162
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 103
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ethan Corey Harwood (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Lungo (Crown)
A Evers (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2017/370100

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: On 12 October 2018, Ethan Corey Harwood (“the offender”) entered a plea of guilty to a charge in the Penrith Local Court that he, on 2 December 2017, at South Penrith in the State of New South Wales, murdered Pauline Farrugia (“the deceased”).
There was a Statement of Agreed Facts before the Court. At the outset of those agreed facts, the circumstances of the offence were briefly described.
Sometime after 6pm on Saturday, 2 December 2017, the deceased was stabbed to death at her home on Chesterfield Road, South Penrith. She was killed by her grandson, the offender.
The offender was born on 7 November 1998 and had just turned 19 at the time of the offence. He was arrested on 7 December 2017 and charged…

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 Harwood

Details

AGLC: R v Harwood [2019] NSWSC 1695
Case: [2019] NSWSC 1695
Decision Date: 29 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Harwood involved the defendant, Harwood, who pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for this offence. The murder was characterised by a high level of violence, with the use of a weapon, and the fact that it occurred in the victim's home. The victim impact statement highlighted the profound impact of the crime on the victim's family. The court had to balance various factors in determining the sentence, including the objective seriousness of the crime, the defendant's intention to kill, the lack of premeditation and planning, and the mitigation factors presented by the defence.

The court considered the objective features of the crime, including the intention to kill, the use of a weapon, and the location of the crime, which contributed to its severity. The absence of premeditation and planning was noted as a mitigating factor. The subjective features, such as the defendant's lack of a criminal record, no history of violence, and the presence of remorse, were also taken into account. The court assessed the defendant's moral culpability and mental state, along with the prospects of rehabilitation. General deterrence and the maximum penalty for the offence were also relevant considerations. After evaluating these factors, the court determined the appropriate sentence and the standard non-parole period, taking into account any special circumstances.

The court found that the crime warranted a severe penalty, reflecting its objective seriousness and the high level of violence involved. However, the mitigating factors, such as the defendant's lack of a criminal record, absence of a history of violence, and expression of remorse, were also given weight. The court concluded that the maximum penalty for murder was appropriate, but the standard non-parole period could be adjusted based on the special circumstances of the case. The final orders included a custodial sentence with a specified non-parole period, reflecting the court's comprehensive assessment of all relevant factors.

Orders