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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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 that the evidence establishes the following facts.

5. Ms Choi and the offender commenced a romantic relationship in about March 2017, having met some six months previously at a cycling club in North Sydney.

6. In April 2017 the couple travelled together to South Korea, where each met the other’s family.

7. Soon after their return to Australia the offender moved into Ms Choi’s Chatswood apartment to live with her. The apartment is located on the 23rd floor of a building on the Pacific Highway. It has a small balcony facing towards a driveway off Brown Street.

8. In a relatively short time Ms Choi found that the offender was possessive and controlling of her. She told friends that he did not like her seeing male friends or clients of the bank for which she worked, and wanted to know her movements at all times. In May and June 2017 she recorded some notes on her mobile telephone, referring – amongst other things – to the offender as suspicious, experiencing a burst of anger, and speaking without thinking.

9. There were further tensions between the offender and Ms Choi and, in early July 2017 she asked a married friend if her husband objected to her spending time with men, disclosing an argument between herself and the offender on the subject. Soon after the offender sent Ms Choi a message of apology.

10. On 6 July 2017 Ms Choi complained to a friend that the offender did not like her having men as friends, or even meeting with male clients of the bank. She told her friend that, when she suggested to the offender that they have a break from their relationship, he had told her that if she abandoned him he would commit suicide.

11. With tragic prescience, Ms Choi wrote,

He is not violent but I wonder if he can turn violent later on […] I try to keep some distance between us because I was afraid that something might happen to my life if I continue this relationship further for no reason.

12. At lunch with a friend the following day, 7 July 2017, Ms Choi said that she and the offender were arguing a lot about her contact with male clients. Ms Choi said that the offender sometimes yelled at her and she was scared.

13. A few days later Ms Choi made a similar complaint to another friend, saying that things with the offender were not going well and she was considering ending the relationship. She said that the offender was possessive, objected to any contact she had with men, and required her to be home by a particular time. On 15 July 2017 Ms Choi said to a different friend that she intended to ask the offender to move out of her apartment. She said that she had not known until told by the offender’s sister that he had a child from his former marriage, and she could not marry him.

14. Soon after the offender sent a message to his parents telling them that Ms Choi was considering ending their relationship, and raising the possibility of resuming his relationship with his estranged wife before their divorce finalised. He said it was “too hard and lonely” on his own.

15. When Ms Choi tried to end the relationship at the end of July 2017 the offender had, Ms Choi told a friend, got onto one knee and begged her not to, saying that he had no one but her and would die if she broke up with him. Her friend urged her to end the relationship as soon as possible.

16. Although Ms Choi tried a second time to end the relationship, the offender threatened to commit suicide if she did, and she desisted.

17. On 4 August 2017 Ms Choi told a friend that she intended to tell the offender to move out of her apartment, but was frightened of his reaction. She asked her friend if she could stay at her friend’s home if anything happened. Later, on the night of 4 August, Ms Choi telephoned her friend and reported that she had asked the offender to move out but he did not want to. She said he was in the kitchen and she was scared of him, but that he was going to sleep on the couch. She told another friend in a phone call that night that the offender had wanted to sleep in the bedroom with her but that she had refused.

18. The following day the offender reported the breakdown of the relationship to a friend, saying that he was heartbroken. That same day, Ms Choi told her friend that she had not been able to sleep the previous night for fear of the offender, who had been angry, and cursed, yelled, and threw things. She reported that the offender had called her a “slut” and accused her of seeing another man. Ms Choi also messaged another friend, saying that the offender had no intention of moving out of the apartment, and wanted to continue to sleep in the main bedroom with her. She said that she had told the offender she would stay somewhere else, as she “felt [her] personal danger”.

19. Although soon after Ms Choi reported to a friend that the offender had agreed to move out at the end of the week, her friend recalls her also saying that the offender had told her, “If you give up on me, let’s die”.

20. Ms Choi was still reporting her fear of the offender to her friends a week or so later, and telling friends that he checked on her constantly, and became angry if she did not quickly respond to his messages.

21. On 13 August 2017 the offender moved out of Ms Choi’s apartment, with Ms Choi expressing her relief at that to her friends.

22. For the remainder of August 2017 the offender was in regular telephone contact with Ms Choi. On 21 August, and again in early September 2017, Ms Choi asked the offender to return the key to her apartment. They saw each other a couple of times towards the end of August. The offender sent Ms Choi occasional messages saying how much he missed her, and asking “what can be done”. In some of the frequent messages he begged her to remain friends with him.

23. During September 2017 Ms Choi reported the breakup of her relationship with the offender to various friends, saying that she was happy that it was over, and had not wanted to marry the offender. The offender, however, continued to send messages to Ms Choi and make telephone contact with her, saying that he missed her and asking to meet. Ms Choi agreed to a meeting on 24 September 2017, after which the offender sent messages saying he wanted to see more of her.

24. In late September and early October 2017 the offender repeatedly contacted Ms Choi, asking to see her, asking her for dinner, and asking her to answer his calls. Some days, the offender called Ms Choi multiple times. On 6 October 2017 the offender sent messages to her asking her to have dinner with him and suggesting that he come to her apartment. Ms Choi responded, telling the offender that he was selfish, did not listen to her, and did what he wanted to do.

25. In communication with his parents in South Korea at about that time the offender asked for their intercession with his former wife so that he could see his child, suggesting they convey his apology “for hitting”. He said that he was “not normal lately”, and was having “bad thoughts”.

26. On Saturday 7 October 2017 the offender went to Ms Choi’s apartment and stayed there for what remained of the weekend, and into Monday 9 October 2017. The offender emerged from the unit on three occasions on Sunday, and on one occasion in the early hours of Monday. Ms Choi did not leave the apartment at all during that period, and her last web activity via her mobile telephone was at 1:17am on Monday.

27. Between 4:30am and 5:35am both Ms Choi and the offender were inside the apartment. The offender asserts, but the evidence does not establish on the balance of probabilities, that there was an argument during which Ms Choi screamed at him and threw items of clothing at him. In the absence of any report of screaming heard at that time, and in circumstances where no clothing was found strewn about the premises when it was later searched by police, I do not accept that that occurred. There is no reason to conclude that Ms Choi was ever violent towards the offender.

28. Whatever the background to it, at some point in that period there was an argument, and the offender punched Ms Choi to the face, landing a number of blows. He used enough force to fracture a metacarpal bone in his hand, and bruise his knuckles. Ms Choi received a head injury, and was bleeding from it. Its extent cannot be determined in light of what was to occur next.

29. Between 5am and a little after 5:30am the offender carried or dragged Ms Choi from the bedroom to the balcony, and threw her over the balcony railing from the 23rd floor of the building. She fell, unobstructed, striking the ground face down, a little over 1.5 metres from the building, on the driveway off Brown Street. The offender did nothing to call for aid for Ms Choi.

30. The precise mechanism underlying the cause of Ms Choi’s death is not entirely clear; she may have died as a consequence of impact with the ground; although it is possible that, prior to casting her from the balcony, the offender strangled Ms Choi to death, or to unconsciousness. Haemorrhaging to Ms Choi’s eyes and the front of her neck support a conclusion that she was choked, not necessarily that she died by strangulation.

31. It is not necessary for the purpose of sentencing the offender to determine the precise cause of death: whether the offender strangled Ms Choi to death and then cast her body from the balcony, or whether he applied non-lethal force to her throat and then threw her to her death, it was his deliberate willed act that brought about her violent death. The only real uncertainty about it is whether Ms Choi knew her fate as she plummeted towards the ground after being jettisoned from the balcony by the offender.

32. Having thrown Ms Choi from the 23rd floor, the offender left the apartment and took the lift to the building’s gymnasium four floors up. There he climbed through a window onto a ledge, and thence onto an awning over a balcony.

33. On the ground, at about 6.15am, a passer-by drove his car into the Brown Street driveway to drop a friend off there. He saw Ms Choi’s body lying in the driveway, a pool of blood beneath her. He contacted the Emergency Services operator, and police officers and paramedics attended. Ms Choi was determined by paramedics to be dead.

34. At about 7am attending police officers became aware of the offender located on the awning of the 27th floor of the building. A Korean speaking police officer was called to attend the scene, and he and a friend of the offender, also summoned to the building, tried to talk to the offender, over a number of hours. Whilst on the awning the offender said that he had better “finish himself”, that Ms Choi was dead and he faced “the death penalty” or would “spend the rest of [his] life in gaol”.

35. At about 7.30 that evening the offender was brought in from the awning by Police Rescue officers. Paramedics observed bruising and swelling to the offender’s left hand. He was taken to the Royal North Shore Hospital for assessment.

36. Physically, the offender had only the bruising to his left hand and a fracture to one of the bones of it, caused by the force with which he hit Ms Choi. A psychiatric assessment concluded that the offender was not suffering from a mental illness justifying his detention in a mental health facility pursuant to the Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW). During the course of speaking with the psychiatric Registrar who conducted the assessment, the offender said that he had spent the weekend with Ms Choi, but that they had had an argument, and “she was very excited, very upset she couldn’t control herself so she fell she jumped”. He was sufficiently rational to give the doctor a fabricated exculpatory account of events.

37. At 10.40pm the offender was arrested and advised of his right to silence. He was taken to Chatswood Police Station on discharge from hospital, and interviewed by police, with the assistance of a Korean language interpreter.

38. In the interview the offender said that he went to Ms Choi’s apartment on Saturday evening, and remained there for the weekend. He said there had been an argument between them shortly before 5 o’clock on the morning of Monday 9 October 2017, which had become physical. The offender said that Ms Choi had kicked him and he had punched her to the face, demonstrating the motion made with a closed fist. Later, he said that he thought he had hit her two or three times, and she was scared. When asked how he came to have blood on his shirt, the offender said that he thought it must be Ms Choi’s blood. The Court does not accept the truth of any of the assertions from the offender as to violence towards him from Ms Choi.

39. After a short respite the argument continued, with the offender falsely telling the police officers that Ms Choi had run from the bedroom towards the balcony, looking as if she was “out of her mind”, and “assumed a jumping off position”. The offender said that he shouted to Ms Choi that it was dangerous, and tried to grab her, but could not, and she fell. He denied chasing Ms Choi to the balcony, or pushing her off it.

40. He said that he then went up to the 27th floor of the building, having resolved to take his own life.

41. The crime scene examination of the apartment discovered fresh blood stains on a pillow and doona on Ms Choi’s bed, later matched by DNA to Ms Choi. Matter from beneath a fingernail of Ms Choi was DNA matched to the offender. It is clear there was a struggle, that he hit her, and that her fingernail was in contact with him, almost certainly as she tried to defend herself.

42. A post-mortem examination of Ms Choi’s body located multiple injuries, and multiple injuries has been given as the cause of death by the forensic pathologist who conducted the examination. It is not necessary to detail the extent of those injuries here. Suffice to say that Ms Choi sustained serious and extensive injuries, including multiple fractures to the skull, spine, ribs, pelvis, and limbs. There is evidence of severe blunt force trauma to areas of both the front and rear of the body, not all of which can be explained by the impact with the ground. Petechial haemorrhages to the eyes and haemorrhages to the neck area are consistent with pressure, although not necessarily fatal pressure, being applied to Ms Choi’s throat. Her injuries were catastrophic.

Other Information in the Crown Case

43. The offender’s NSW criminal history forms part of Ex. A. He has two prior convictions, both from 2016. On 28 October 2016 the offender was convicted of an offence of common assault, and placed on a bond for 12 months pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The offender was also dealt with that day for an offence of contravening an apprehended domestic violence order, committed later in 2016, receiving a further s 9 bond, of 8 months duration. Both convictions were for domestic violence offences.

44. The chronology suggests that the offender was charged with a domestic assault, and made subject to an ADVO, which he later breached. The victim of the assault was the offender’s then pregnant wife.

45. The first of the bonds imposed upon the offender, for assaulting his then wife, was current at the time of Ms Choi’s murder, and the offender was thereby in breach of it.

46. The offender has been in custody with respect to this matter since his arrest late on the evening of 9 October 2017.

47. There is a victim impact statement given to the Court by Ms Choi’s father, on behalf of her family, in the presence of her mother. Although given in the Korean language, it was not necessary to wait for the translation to understand the pain and grief caused by Ms Choi’s death, and Mr Choi’s distress as he described the devastation caused to him, his wife, and son, by her violent death. I have had regard to the statement in the way discussed in R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76.

48. Ms Choi’s parents travelled from Korea to Australia to be present in court today, to honour her. They have described their love for Ms Choi, and their great pride in her achievements, achievements in which her family had a part to play by their hard work to support her in her studies. They feel the grief of their loss each day, and can no longer lead the same happy lives as they formerly did.

49. I hope Ms Choi’s family can understand that no sentence that the Court can impose upon the offender can change the terrible reality of what occurred, or even lessen the pain caused to them by her loss. I can only acknowledge the magnitude of the wrong done to Ms Choi and to her family and friends, and express my deepest sympathy to those who loved her.

The Gravity of the Offences

50. All murders are serious; that is why the offence carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. As Ms Choi’s father said in the family’s victim impact statement, a young life full of promise, a life that is given only once, was violently cut short.

51. Where on the continuum of gravity the individual offences may fall is dictated by the facts of the particular crime and the offender’s moral culpability. Having regard to its particular features, Ms Choi’s murder is a serious example of such an offence, falling a little over the mid-range point, as both parties observed in submissions.

50. Ms Choi was physically smaller than the offender, and thus at a disadvantage in any physical struggle with him to defend herself.

51. She was attacked by him in her own home, a home in which he had no right to be, Ms Choi having asked him to leave. Thus did what should have been a place of peace and safety become a place of great danger for Ms Choi.

52. Although the level of violence directed by the offender to Ms Choi initially cannot be determined with precision because of the injuries caused by her later impact with the ground, it is clear that the offender struck her more than once, and used very considerable force, breaking a bone in his own hand in the process. By his own acknowledgment, the offender strangled Ms Choi, something that must have led to both pain, and great fear.

53. Ms Choi had told friends that she was scared of the offender due to his earlier conduct; she must have been terrified of him on this early morning, and terrified of what was going to happen to her.

54. In throwing her from the balcony of a 23rd floor apartment, the offender acted with an intention to kill; no other outcome could have resulted from a fall from such a height. I do not accept the offender’s unsworn assertion to Dr Furst that Ms Choi was at that time already dead; the credible evidence does not allow the Court to draw that conclusion.

55. This was a brutal crime, committed as a consequence of the offender’s enraged inability to accept that Ms Choi had a life of her own, and a right to make her own choices.

56. The offence to be taken into account was also a serious example of a crime of its nature, even in circumstances where the extent of the injuries inflicted upon Ms Choi cannot be determined, beyond concluding that actual bodily harm was occasioned. The injuries the offender caused to himself in hitting her demonstrate the force used. Consistent with authority, there should be some increase in the penalty to be imposed upon the offender for Ms Choi’s murder to denounce the crime, and exact some retribution for it although, given the temporal proximity to the principal crime and connection with it, it will be modest.

57. The offender’s moral culpability for these crimes is high. His conduct towards Ms Choi demonstrated a violent disregard and disrespect for her rights as an individual who could live as she chose, and is explained by nothing more than his inability to accept, and irrational anger at, her decision to end their relationship.

The Offender’s Case

60. The offender did not give evidence on sentence.

61. Exhibit 1 before the Court is a report dated 3 May 2019 from Dr Richard Furst, forensic psychiatrist, who saw and assessed the offender on two occasions, in October 2018 and March 2019. The latter assessment followed the offender’s acknowledgment of his guilt for these crimes.

62. Dr Furst observed that the offender was aged 38 years at the time of their later consultation, and had been born in South Korea. The offender was logical in thought throughout the interview and he did not exhibit any signs of psychosis or severe depression. He was cognitively aware, although he reported difficulties in sleeping, and feeling anxious in custody.

63. Dr Furst recounted the history given to him by the offender. The offender had been occupied as a painter, and lived in the north-west of Sydney at the time of the offence. His family – his older sister, younger sister and his parents –live in South Korea.

64. The offender reported that his father was abusive towards him and his mother during his childhood. He described his father as “an angry person” whom he “hated…when he was young”. He told Dr Furst that his father would confine him to a room as punishment, punishment that he said traumatised him, and led to low self-esteem and a tendency to isolate himself. He developed a habit of retreating to the rooftop of his home when stressed.

65. The offender told Dr Furst that he had completed primary and high school education in South Korea and, after finishing school, completed about 2 years of compulsory military service. He claimed to have been physically abused by his military superiors, and he suffered from depression, anxiety, and frustration during his military service. He said this led to an attempted suicide, although no formal mental health diagnosis was made and no treatment was undertaken.

66. Following military service, the offender studied towards a Bachelor of Biology at university for four years, as well as studying, but later discontinuing, basic medicine.

67. At age 25 or 26, in 2005 or 2006, the offender migrated to Australia. He studied English at TAFE and worked part-time as a cleaner. He also studied nursing for two years around 2008 but was unable to complete the course due to financial difficulties.

68. The offender told Dr Furst of a number of romantic relationships in which he had been involved. A relationship in Korea ended after about 2 years. In Australia, the offender was involved with a Korean woman for about 5 years, but this relationship too ended. Following the breakdown of this relationship, the offender returned to South Korea. In 2012 he again travelled to Australia, securing a visa for permanent residency. He met, and later married, his former wife at about that time, but the marriage was troubled, and the couple separated in 2016, on the birth of their son.

69. Dr Furst, who was provided with extensive documentation relevant to the breakdown of the offender’s marriage, asked the offender about violence in the relationship, but the offender denied it. Having regard to the offender’s criminal history, and the other records to which he had access, the doctor thought that the offender minimised the extent of the discord and violence in the marriage.

70. Of his relationship with Ms Choi, the offender reported a “sudden change of behaviour” on her part leading to their separation, although he later acknowledged that Ms Choi had regarded him as too controlling.

71. The offender gave Dr Furst an account of the events surrounding Ms Choi’s death, including having an argument with her because she wanted him to leave her apartment, and becoming angry. He told the doctor that he “lost” himself, hit Ms Choi, strangled her, and “threw her off” the balcony. He said he did not know why he had thrown Ms Choi from the balcony, claiming not to “recognise what happened”, and later saying that he “‘still [couldn’t] believe what he did’”.

72. The offender told Dr Furst that he “thinks about what happened ‘every day’ and regrets what happened”.

73. Dr Furst opined that the offender’s relationships with women were characterised by a pattern of controlling behaviour. He evaluated the offender’s response to Ms Choi’s request to him to leave her apartment as “angry, excessive and lethal”, with Ms Choi’s murder the product of the offender’s inability to accept the end of his relationship with her. The doctor thought that the offender’s act in throwing Ms Choi from the balcony reflected his difficulties in coming to terms with rejection, and his maladaptive coping style.

74. Although Dr Furst regarded the offender’s threat to commit suicide during the day long stand-off with police on 9 October 2017 as demonstrating that he was suicidal and mentally disordered at that time, the doctor concluded that the offender has no major mental illness, and no substance abuse issues, and no specific diagnosis was made. The offender has what Dr Furst referred to as “difficulties in relationships” with particular sensitivities to real or perceived rejection. The doctor recommended psychotherapy.

75. Whilst Dr Furst reported the offender’s asserted remorse for his crime, there is no evidence of it other than that hearsay account, which should be treated with considerable circumspection: R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353. The plea of guilty may be taken as some evidence of remorse, but its use in that way must be tempered by the fact that the offender did not acknowledge his guilt until many, many months after Ms Choi’s death, and only after falsely claiming that she had committed suicide.

76. When he was on the awning of the 27th floor of Ms Choi’s apartment block, the offender’s only real concern connected with Ms Choi’s death appears to have been for himself as a consequence of it – that he would receive the “death penalty” [that not being a sentencing option in Australia], or that he would spend the rest of his life in gaol. When formally questioned by police he lied to them about what had occurred, asserting that Ms Choi had killed herself.

77. It was only after the offender had unsuccessfully explored the availability of a defence or partial defence connected with a mental illness, as was his right, that he acknowledged his responsibility for Ms Choi’s murder.

78. The offender will receive the full benefit on sentence of his plea of guilty in the Local Court, being a 25% discount on the sentence that otherwise would have been imposed to recognise its utilitarian value, but I do not think it says anything about genuine remorse. There is no credible evidence that the offender feels sorry for anything other than the situation he is in.

Other features relevant to sentence

Deterrence

79. Like too many women before her, Ms Choi died because the man with whom she had been involved could not accept her right to autonomy. The offender acted from a profound sense of entitlement, clearly believing that Ms Choi had to conform to his wishes rather than pursue her own.

80. The offender’s crime is one seen with distressing frequency, and there is a very real role for general deterrence in determining the sentence to be imposed upon him. That is a role which has long been recognised. The criminal courts give significant weight to general deterrence, to denunciation, and the protection of the community when imposing sentence on an offender who murders a partner or former partner. In  Munda v Western Australia(2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 the High Court referred, at [54], to

the long-standing obligation of the state to vindicate the dignity of each victim of violence, to express the community’s disapproval of that offending, and to afford such protection as can be afforded by the state to the vulnerable against repetition of violence.

81. Paraphrasing the plurality (from [55] of Munda), a consideration with a very powerful claim on the exercise of the sentencing discretion in this case is the need to recognise that the offender, by his violent conduct, took the life of his former partner, a bright young woman with all of her future before her. As the High Court said,

A just sentence must accord due recognition to the human dignity of the victim of domestic violence and the legitimate interest of the general community in the denunciation and punishment of a brutal […] destruction of a woman by her partner. A failure on the part of the state to mete out a just punishment of violent offending may be seen as a failure by the state to vindicate the human dignity of the victim; and to impose a lesser punishment by reason of the identity of the victim is to create a group of second-class citizens, a state of affairs entirely at odds with the fundamental idea of equality before the law.

82. Whilst there are men in the community, and it is mostly men, who view women as second class citizens who must bend to their will, when that attitude results in the commission of crime, and particularly violent crime, the courts will impose heavy punishment. Such conduct is never acceptable and it will be strongly repudiated by the courts.

83. In the offender’s case, specific deterrence also has a significant role to play. He acknowledges that his past demonstrates a pattern of controlling behaviour towards the women with whom he has been involved, on occasion involving violence. His criminal antecedents are demonstrative of that history.

84. The offender learned nothing from his prior appearance before the criminal courts, and clearly paid no heed to the bond he entered in October 2016, which required him to be of good behaviour. The fact that he was at conditional liberty when he murdered Ms Choi, an aggravating feature on sentence, points to the offender’s inability to change his behaviour, at least until that time. The sentence imposed upon him must act as a deterrent upon his future conduct.

Rehabilitation

85. The offender’s background, and the breach of his bond, must also give rise to strong reservations as to his prospects of rehabilitation. There is little in his case to lead to a favourable assessment in that regard. His controlling nature with women appears to be of long standing, and even the intervention of the criminal justice system in 2016 did not give the offender pause for thought. He continued in an attitude that his romantic partner was his to dictate to. The offender submits that his plea of guilty is some evidence of his acceptance of responsibility and thus of relevance to his future prospects, but the plea probably says more about the offender’s recognition of his legal situation than it does about his resolve for the future.

86. I am not able to make any informed prediction as to rehabilitation, although I fear the offender’s future prospects may be bleak.

Special Circumstances

87. It is submitted for the offender that there may be a basis for the Court to make a finding of special circumstances. I am not persuaded that the offender’s circumstances are special, or that there is any real purpose to be served in varying the statutory ratio of sentence. I accept that, as a Korean national with limited English language skills at present, and no family locally, the offender will find his incarceration more isolating than most other prisoners. That is a feature of his case I have had regard to when fixing the penalty to be imposed; it is not something that should ground a finding that special circumstances exist.

88. Whilst I have had regard to Dr Furst’s report, there is nothing in it which supports the utility of such a finding. The offender does not suffer from any condition that should mitigate the operation of the usual sentencing ratio. I accept that he will benefit from psychotherapy, but there is no reason to conclude in the circumstances of his case that he would be advantaged in that regard by a longer period of parole.

Sentence

89. The offender, June Oh Seo, is 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, and reducing the term by 25% to acknowledge the plea of guilty, 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 (rounded down) is 16 years and 10 months imprisonment, expiring on 8 August 2034.

90. The offender is warned that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) may apply to him.

*********

Decision last updated: 31 May 2019