Legal Research
Cases
R v Joyce

R v Joyce

Case [2007] NSWSC 218 23 March 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Joyce [2007] NSWSC 218

HEARING DATE(S): 17/11/06, 23/02/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 March 2007

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1

DECISION: Sentence - Non-parole period of 16 years commencing 12/07/05 and expiring 11/07/21 and a balance of term of 5 years commencing on 12/07/21 and expiring on 11/07/26. The earliest date on which you will be eligible for release on parole will be 11/07/21.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Firearms Act 1996

CASES CITED: R v Isaacs (1997) 90 A Crim R 587
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629.

PARTIES: Regina v Bevan Phillip JOYCE

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2005/2542

COUNSEL: L Lungo - Crown
P Young SC - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecution
-

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LAW LIST

JAMES J

Friday 23 March 2007

2005/2542 REGINA v Bevan Phillip JOYCE
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 19 July 2006 after a trial presided over by me a jury found the prisoner Bevan Phillip Joyce guilty of having murdered on 10 April 2005 at Colyton, Rosemary Joyce, who was his estranged wife.

2 After the jury had returned their verdict of guilty the proceedings on sentence were stood over to 17 November 2006. On 17 November 2006 counsel for the prisoner applied for a further adjournment of the proceedings on sentence to enable medical reports about the prisoner to be obtained and the proceedings on sentence were adjourned to 23 February 2007. On 23 February 2007 a hearing of the proceedings on sentence took place and I reserved my sentencing decision.

3 As a sentencing judge I have to determine, so far as I can, what are the facts relevant to the sentencing of the prisoner. The principles to be applied by me in determining those facts have been stated in such cases as R v Isaacs (1997) 90 A Crim R 587 and The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270. Any facts I find must be consistent with the verdict of the jury and I must accept such facts as are necessarily established by the verdict of the jury. Subject to this constraint, the onus is on the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt facts which would be adverse to the prisoner and the onus is on the prisoner to prove on the balance of probabilities facts which would be favourable to the prisoner. There may be matters which would be relevant to sentencing but as to which the state of the evidence does not permit a sentencing judge to make any finding, either a finding beyond reasonable doubt adverse to the prisoner or a finding on the balance of probabilities favourable to the prisoner. That a sentencing judge may not have sufficient evidence to be able to make a finding on a matter which is relevant to sentencing was recognised by the High Court in

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 Joyce

Details

AGLC: R v Joyce [2007] NSWSC 218
Case: [2007] NSWSC 218
Decision Date: 23 March 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, James J presided over the sentencing of Bevan Phillip Joyce, who was found guilty of murdering his estranged wife, Rosemary Joyce. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the nature of the offence, the circumstances, and relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The legal issues involved assessing the objective seriousness of the crime, the prisoner's background, and any mitigating or aggravating factors that could influence the sentencing. James J concluded that the murder, while heinous, was not premeditated and occurred during an argument, with the prisoner experiencing some loss of self-control. The court also took into account the prisoner's difficult upbringing, limited education, and ongoing health concerns. Despite these factors, the court found that the mitigating elements did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence, given the gravity of the crime. Ultimately, James J sentenced Bevan Joyce to a non-parole period of sixteen years, commencing from 12 July 2005, and a balance of term of five years, making the prisoner eligible for parole on 11 July 2021.

Orders