Legal Research
Cases
R v Kim Leanne Snibson

R v Kim Leanne Snibson

Case [2008] NSWSC 905 5 September 2008

Murder

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Kim Leanne Snibson [2008] NSWSC 905

HEARING DATE(S): 15/5/08, 19/5/08, 20/5/08, 21/5/08, 22/5/08, 23/5/08, 26/5/08, 27/5/08, 28/5/08, 29/5/08, 18/08/08, 19/08/08, 20/08/08, 21/08/08, 22/08/08, 27/08/08, 29/08/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
5 September 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J

DECISION: 1 For the offence of detaining Gregory Hosa in circumstances constituting the specially aggravated form of kidnapping the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 8 years 6 months to commence on 29 January 2006 and to expire on 28 July 2014. I decline to impose a non-parole period because of the sentence which I am about to impose.
2 For the offence of murder of Gregory Hosa the offender is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 26 years consisting of a non-parole period of 18 years with the balance of the term being 8 years. Each term will commence on 29 January 2006. The total term will expire on 28 January 2032 and the non-parole period will expire on 28 January 2024.
3 For the offence of detaining Kathryn McKay in circumstances constituting the specially aggravated form of kidnapping the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 8 years 6 months to commence on 29 January 2012 and to expire on 28 July 2020, I decline to impose a non-parole period because of the sentence which I am about to impose.
4 For the offence of murder of Kathryn McKay the offender is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 26 years consisting of a non-parole period of 18 years with the balance of the term being 8 years. Each term will commence on 29 January 2012. The total term will expire on 28 January 2038 and the non-parole period will expire on 28 January 2030 on which date the offender will be eligible for release on parole.
5 The effective head sentence is thus one of 32 years imprisonment with an effective non-parole period of 24 years.

CATCHWORDS: Murder - specially aggravated kidnapping - two victims - dispute about offender's role - pleas of guilty - standard non-parole period - question of totality - consideration of sentence imposed on co-offender

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Adanguidi v R (2006) 167 A Crim R 295
Andrews v R (2006) 160 A Crim R 505
Cameron v the Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
GAS v The Queen; SJK v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198
Johnson v R (2004) 205 ALR 346
MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575
R v Collett (unreported, 7 June 1979, NSWCCA)
R v Falls [2004] NSWCCA 335
R v FD & JD (2006) 160 A Crim R 392
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v JB and RJH [1999] NSWCCA 93
R v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
R v Markarian (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v Mills (unreported, NSWCCA,…

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 Kim Leanne Snibson

Details

AGLC: R v Kim Leanne Snibson [2008] NSWSC 905
Case: [2008] NSWSC 905
Decision Date: 5 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kim Leanne Snibson involved the defendant, Kim Snibson, who was charged with the murder of two victims, as well as specially aggravated kidnapping. The dispute centred around the extent of Snibson's role in the crimes, with conflicting evidence presented about whether she was a principal or an accessory. Both Snibson and her co-defendant, who was also charged in relation to the crimes, pleaded guilty to their respective charges. The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate standard non-parole period for Snibson's murder conviction, as well as whether the totality principle should be applied in light of the sentence imposed on the co-offender.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, with a focus on the role of the offender and the severity of the crime. The totality principle was discussed in relation to the need to ensure that the combined sentences of both offenders did not result in an overall sentence that was either disproportionately lenient or harsh. The court also examined the facts of the case, including the nature of the kidnapping and the circumstances surrounding the murders. In applying these principles, the court determined that the standard non-parole period for Snibson's murder conviction should be set at a certain number of years, taking into account her role in the crimes and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also found that the totality principle did not require any adjustment to the sentence, given the appropriate consideration of the co-offender's sentence and the unique circumstances of each offender.

The outcome of the case was that Snibson was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a specified non-parole period for her murder conviction, as well as additional terms for the specially aggravated kidnapping and other related charges. The court's reasoning focused on the appropriate application of sentencing principles and the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the offender's role. The final orders of the court included the imposition of the determined sentence on Snibson, with specific details about the non-parole period and any other relevant terms.

Orders