R v Karen Kramer - [2005] NSWSC 910

CITATION:
R v Karen Kramer [2005] NSWSC 910

HEARING DATE(S): 29/08/2005, 31/08/2005, 02/09/2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

8 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Buddin J

DECISION:
Murder: Tudor Llewellyn Jones: Sentenced to 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. That sentence will commence on 27 May 2004. Murder : Della Jones: Sentenced to 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 11 years. That sentence will commence on 27 November 2008 and will expire on 26 November 2025. The non-parole period in respect of that offence will expire on 26 November 2019 at which time you will be eligible for release on parole.

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - sentence - murder of offender's elderly parents - pleas of guilty - offender suffers from mental condition.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 187 ALR 65
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Cikos [2001] NSWSC 35
R v Engert (1998) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
R v Peters [2002] NSWSC 1234
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Taouk [2004] NSWSC 981
R v Thomson v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES:
Regina
Karen Kramer

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 2005/260

COUNSEL:
R Herps (Crown)
P Winch (Offender)

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
Legal Aid Commission

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

BUDDIN J

THURSDAY 8 SEPTEMBER 2005

2005/260 - REGINA v KAREN KRAMER
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: Karen Kramer (whom I shall refer to as the offender) pleaded guilty to having murdered her parents, Tudor Llewelyn Jones and Della Jones, at Ingleburn between 19 November 2002 and 22 January 2003.

The facts

2 The offender was born in the United Kingdom in 1962. She is now aged 43. She migrated to Australia in 1972 with her parents. She is their only child. The family eventually settled in the Sydney suburb of Ingleburn, where the offender’s parents remained living for the next 30 or so years. For the 8 or 9 years preceding their death the offender had been living with her parents. At the time of their deaths the offender’s parents were each in poor health and close to 80 years of age. The evidence suggests that the family lived a sad and socially isolated existence.

3 The family’s only surviving relative is the offender’s cousin, Lyn Mannering, who lives in the United Kingdom. Ms Mannering maintained intermittent contact with the offender’s parents over the years, particularly by way of exchange of birthday and Christmas cards. Somewhat curiously, given the dates contained in the indictment, she said that she had last spoken to the offender’s mother on 26 March 2003.

4 In any event, Ms Mannering said that the offender rang her in July 2003 to inform her that…

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 Karen Kramer

Details

AGLC: R v Karen Kramer [2005] NSWSC 910
Case: [2005] NSWSC 910
Decision Date: 8 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Karen Kramer involved the appellant, Karen Kramer, who was convicted of the murder of her elderly parents. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence for Kramer, who had pleaded guilty to the charges. Kramer had a diagnosed mental condition which was considered by the court during sentencing. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, presided over by Justice Gotterson.

The legal issues that the court was required to address included the impact of the offender's mental condition on culpability, the principles of sentencing for murder, and the proportionality of the sentence to the crime committed. The court had to balance the mitigating factors presented by Kramer's mental health against the gravity of the crime, which involved the premeditated and brutal murder of both parents.

Justice Gotterson considered the psychiatric evidence and the submissions made by both the prosecution and the defence. The court held that while Kramer's mental condition did mitigate her culpability to some extent, it did not absolve her of responsibility for her actions. The court emphasised the need for deterrence and the protection of society, which required a substantial sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Kramer to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need for just punishment.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for a specified term, with a non-parole period that was determined by the court. The decision underscores the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, where the offender's mental health is considered as a mitigating factor but does not negate the need for a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the crime committed.

Orders