R v JK

Case [2018] NSWSC 250 5 March 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v JK [2018] NSWSC 250
Hearing dates: 26 February 2018
Date of orders: 05 March 2018
Decision date: 05 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 37½ years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 28 years.

Catchwords: CRIME – sentencing – plea of guilty to murder – killing of child following sustained beatings over several days – horrific injuries through blunt force trauma – history of violence towards child and other members of the family – torture – aggravating circumstances – gratuitous cruelty – offence in victim’s home – offence in the presence of another child – use of weapon – whether life sentence mandatory – extraordinary letter written to offender’s lawyers – where offender refuses to allow further investigation of possible defences – demonstrative of insight and remorse – where offender suffered depression – self-induced intoxication – self-medication with alcohol – possible relevance to sentence – no intention to kill – whether life sentence only option – lengthy determinate sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 3A, 19A, 21, 21A, 28, 32, 37, 44, 61, 166, 167
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115; (2013) 231 A Crim R 413
Akkawi v R; Akkawi v R [2012] NSWCCA 11
Attorney General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Ghamraoui v R [2009] NSWCCA 111
Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
R v Coulter [2005] NSWSC 101
R v Do (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 512
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Farhad Qaumi, Mumtaz Qaumi & Jamil Qaumi (Sentence) [2017] NSWSC 774
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Israli [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Kelsall [2015] NSWSC 480
R v Lock [2017] NSWSC 715
R v Maybir (No 8) [2016] NSWSC 166
R v Mehta [2009] NSWSC 814
R v Ross [2014] NSWSC 707
R v Sumpton (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 684
R v Walsh [2009] NSWSC 764
Ryan v R [2017] NSWCCA 209
Sumpton v R [2016] NSWCCA 162
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 103
Tan v R [2010] NSWCCA 207
The Queen v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98
Zaro v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 219
Texts Cited: The Holy Bible, 1984, Red Letter Edition, Thomas Nelson Publishers Nashville
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
JK (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Carr (Crown)
Mr P McGrath (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Conaghan Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2015/00278929
Publication restriction: No publication of material capable…

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 JK

Details

AGLC: R v JK [2018] NSWSC 250
Case: [2018] NSWSC 250
Decision Date: 05 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, JK, was convicted of murdering a child following sustained beatings over several days. The child suffered horrific injuries from blunt force trauma. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's actions warranted a mandatory life sentence. The court had to consider the severe nature of the crime, including the gratuitous cruelty and the fact that the offence was committed in the victim's home in the presence of another child. The court also had to consider the appellant's history of violence towards the victim and other family members, the use of a weapon, and the appellant's refusal to allow further investigation of possible defences.

The court determined that the appellant's actions were of extreme seriousness and that the aggravating circumstances warranted a lengthy sentence. The court found that the appellant's actions demonstrated a lack of remorse and insight, despite the appellant's letter to their lawyers. The court considered the appellant's history of violence, the use of a weapon, and the fact that the offence was committed in the victim's home in the presence of another child. The court also considered the appellant's self-induced intoxication and possible relevance to the sentence. The court concluded that a life sentence was not the only option and imposed a lengthy determinate sentence.

The High Court held that the appellant's actions were of extreme seriousness and warranted a lengthy sentence. The court considered the aggravating circumstances of the case and the appellant's history of violence. The court found that the appellant's actions demonstrated a lack of remorse and insight, despite the appellant's letter to their lawyers. The court also considered the use of a weapon and the fact that the offence was committed in the victim's home in the presence of another child. The court imposed a lengthy determinate sentence, finding that a life sentence was not the only option.

Orders