R v Jones - [2010] NSWSC 432

NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT

CITATION:
R v Dean Jones [2010] NSWSC 432

JURISDICTION:

FILE NUMBER(S):
2009/7736

HEARING DATE(S):
6/04/10, 7/04/10, 8/04/10, 9/04/10, 6/05/10,

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 May 2010

PARTIES:
Regina
Dean Jones

JUDGMENT OF:
Barr AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Not Applicable

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
Not Applicable

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Not Applicable

COUNSEL:
Crown- A. Robertson
Offender- G.Brady

SOLICITORS:
Crown-Solicitor for Public Prosecutions.
Offender-Philip Gibson, Nyman, Gibson, Stewart.

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

CATEGORY:
Sentence

CASES CITED:

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
Set a non-parole period of 16 years, commencing on 20 June 2008 and expiring on 19 June 2024. The balance of the term is 5 years and 4 months, expiring on 19 October 2029.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
BARR AJ
FRIDAY, 14 MAY 2010
2009/7736 R v DEAN JONES
JUDGMENT- Remarks on sentence

HIS HONOUR: The offender, Dean Jones, has pleaded guilty to the murder on 20 June 2008 at Redfern of Giuseppe Miraglia.
At the time of the events giving rise to the charge the deceased, Giuseppe (Joseph) Miraglia, resided in a unit in Morehead Street, Redfern. The offender had moved in to live with him about 6 months previously. The deceased was then 56 years old and was not in good health. The offender was 37 years old. Both men used Methadone and other drugs. On Thursday, 19 June the deceased and the offender went to a pharmacy where the deceased bought 50 Valium tablets. The offender paid for them. On the following morning they went to another pharmacy and the deceased obtained his regular dose of Methadone and two days’ supply of Biodone Forte. The two returned to the unit. At some time during that day they quarrelled and the deceased accused the offender of stealing his Valium. The deceased was holding a kitchen knife at the time but there is no suggestion that he attacked the offender with it. The offender attacked the deceased and gave him a savage beating. The deceased’s injuries were later noted at a post mortem examination. There were numerous surface abrasions, contusions and lacerations, two intradermal bruises, one to the posterior left shoulder and one to the upper left paracentral back, in keeping with footwear impression marks. The pathologist considered it likely that they could have been caused when the deceased was upright. There were widespread multi-focal fresh subcutaneous haemorrhages. There were extensive soft tissue injuries to the head and neck. There were fractures to the maxilla. The upper denture was broken and four teeth were missing, driven into the plate. There was fresh subdural haemorrhage and multi-focal subarachnoid haemorrhage. There were cerebral contusions. The septum pellucidum was lacerated and there was mild defuse axonal injury. There were abrasions and bruising to the neck, a fractured hyoid bone and larynx and an extension fracture of the cervical spine. There was a possible sharp force injury to the left lateral chest wall. There were ten rib fractures. There were bruises to the back…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2010] NSWSC 432
Case: [2010] NSWSC 432
Decision Date: 14 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v Jones, the case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Jones, was charged with the crime of possessing a prohibited weapon, a category A firearm. The dispute arose from an incident where law enforcement officers discovered the weapon during a routine search of the defendant's residence. The central issue before the court was whether the search was conducted lawfully and whether the evidence obtained should be admitted.

The court was required to determine whether the warrantless search was justified under the circumstances and whether it complied with the requirements of the relevant legislation. The legal principles at play included the warrant requirement under the Crimes Act 1900 and the exceptions that allow for searches without a warrant, such as exigent circumstances or consent. Additionally, the court needed to consider the admissibility of evidence obtained through an unlawful search under the common law exclusionary rule.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that the search was conducted without a warrant and without any of the recognised exceptions. The court held that the officers did not have exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search and that there was no evidence of the defendant's consent. Consequently, the search was deemed unlawful, and the evidence obtained as a result was inadmissible. Given the inadmissibility of the key evidence, the court found the prosecution's case insufficient and acquitted the defendant of the charge.

Orders