R v June Oh Seo - [2019] NSWSC 639

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v June Oh Seo [2019] NSWSC 639
Hearing dates: 31 May 2019
Date of orders: 31 May 2019
Decision date: 31 May 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
Convicted of the murder of Hee Kyung Choi on 9 October 2017 at Chatswood. Taking into account the offence of assaulting Ms Choi, occasioning actual bodily harm to her, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 22 years and 6 months to date from 9 October 2017, expiring on 8 April 2040. The non-parole period is 16 years and 10 months imprisonment, expiring on 8 August 2034.

Catchwords: CRIME – murder – assault occasioning actual bodily harm – Form 1 – domestic violence offences - plea of guilty
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)
June Oh Seo (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr R Herps as Crown Prosecutor
Mr M Austin for Offender
Solicitors:
Ms J Dewhurst of the ODPP
Mr D Cleverley of Hammond Nguyen Turnbull (assigned by Legal Aid Commission)

File Number(s): 2017/00305238
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

HER HONOUR: On 9 October 2017 Hee Kyung Choi was murdered by her former partner, June Oh Seo. The offender pleaded guilty to Ms Choi’s murder, on 1 November 2018 in the Local Court, and adhered to that plea in this Court on 7 December 2018. Murder is an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In the circumstances of this case, a standard non-parole period of 20 years imprisonment applies.
When he is sentenced for Ms Choi’s murder, the offender asks the Court to take into account a further offence pursuant to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act, of assaulting Ms Choi, occasioning actual bodily harm to her, also on 9 October 2017. When prosecuted on indictment, that offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment.
The maximum penalties and the standard NPP applicable to the crime of murder operate as legislative guideposts that inform the exercise of the Court’s sentencing discretion: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120. The other features to which the Court must have regard when determining the sentences to be imposed are the objective gravity of the crimes, the personal circumstances of the offender, and the relevant principles of sentencing.

The Facts

The facts of the crimes have been largely agreed between the parties. Where there was dispute, the Court has determined the disputed aspect of the facts, where the evidence permits it. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt…

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 June Oh Seo 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: [2019] NSWSC 639
Decision Date: 31 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v June Oh Seo involved the accused, June Oh Seo, who pleaded guilty to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in addition to domestic violence offences. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on June Oh Seo, given her guilty plea to the charges.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were the severity of the assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the context of domestic violence, and the principles that should guide the sentencing of June Oh Seo. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the principles of sentencing for domestic violence offences, when determining the appropriate penalty. The court was also required to assess the relevance of June Oh Seo's guilty plea in the context of the sentencing process.

In its reasoning, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, noting that it involved a significant degree of physical harm inflicted upon a vulnerable victim. The court also acknowledged the context of domestic violence, which often involves a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour. The court considered the principles of sentencing for domestic violence offences, which require the court to impose a sentence that is proportionate to the offending, while also promoting the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the community. The court further highlighted the significance of June Oh Seo's guilty plea, which can result in a discount to the sentence imposed. After weighing these factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for June Oh Seo was a term of imprisonment, followed by a period of community corrections orders.

Orders