R v Jason Russell DAVIS - [2008] NSWSC 55

CITATION: R v Jason Russell DAVIS [2008] NSWSC 55

HEARING DATE(S): 27, 28, 29, 30 November 2007
3, 4, 5, 6 December 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
14 February 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Mathews AJ

DECISION: Offender is sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 18 years commencing on 8 November 2005 and expiring on 7 November 2023. The balance of the term of imprisonment will be 6 years, commencing on 8 November 2023 and expiring on 7 November 2029. The earliest date offender will be eligible for release on parole will be 7 November 2023.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: R v Jason Russell DAVIS

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/244

COUNSEL: A J Robertson (Crown)
A C Haesler SC (Accused)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (Accused)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MATHEWS AJ

Thursday 14 February 2008

2007/244 Regina v Jason Russell DAVIS

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR: On 7 December 2007 the offender, Jason Davis, was convicted by a jury of murdering Vikila Avimeleki. The background of the matter is as follows:

2 In October 2005 the deceased, Mr Avimeleki, was a large, fit 73 year old islander man. He lived in an apartment in Bexley Road only a short distance from the Bexley North railway station. His flatmate in the two- bedroom apartment was a young woman who was generally away at work during the day. The deceased himself was working as a security guard at that time, and was on night shift. The apartment was on the first floor of a two storey building, immediately above commercial premises. It had two entrances: a front entrance from Bexley Road, which led to internal stairs going up to the apartment. At the rear of the premises a set of external stairs led to another doorway which opened directly into the kitchen of the apartment.

3 On Thursday, 27 October 2005 the deceased left the apartment at about 11.00 am and spent much of the day with his cousin. He returned home at about 5.00 pm. He entered through the front door, which he locked behind him, and went up to his apartment.

4 In the meantime the offender had entered the deceased’s apartment through the back door by opening some shutters beside the door and unlocking the door from the inside. The offender had never met the deceased. His object in breaking into the apartment was to steal property. At some point the offender took the deceased’s mobile phone which had been left in the lounge room. He went into the deceased’s bedroom where he disturbed a number of items, leaving objects and papers littered on the bed and the floor. At this point the deceased arrived home. The offender tried to escape by running down the steps towards the front door. The deceased ran after him. Unfortunately the door was locked and the offender was unable to escape. In the confrontation between…

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 Jason Russell DAVIS 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: [2008] NSWSC 55
Decision Date: 14 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jason Russell Davis involved the sentencing of the accused, Jason Russell Davis, who had been found guilty of the murder of an individual. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Davis for his crime, with both the prosecution and the defence presenting arguments on the appropriate level of punishment.

The legal issues before the court included the principles of sentencing for murder, the need to balance the gravity of the offence with the circumstances surrounding the crime, and the appropriate application of the mitigating and aggravating factors presented in this case. The court had to consider the nature of the offence, the impact on the victim and their family, and any relevant mitigating factors that could influence the final sentence.

The court, in its reasoning, emphasised the heinous nature of the crime and the loss suffered by the victim's family. It acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the need for a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the act. The court also took into account the mitigating factors presented, including Davis' background and any other circumstances that could be considered in determining the appropriate punishment. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence should reflect both the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors, ultimately imposing a sentence that balanced these considerations.

The final orders of the court included a sentence for Davis that took into account both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The specific details of the sentence, including the length and nature of the imprisonment, were determined by the court after careful consideration of all relevant factors.

Orders