R v Kirrlie Shane WILSON - [2008] NSWSC 238

CITATION: R v Kirrlie Shane WILSON [2008] NSWSC 238

HEARING DATE(S): 05/12/2007, 01/02/2008, 14/03/2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
4 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment made up of a non-parole period of 20 years and a balance of term of 6 1/2 years. The sentence is to commence on 19 May 2006 and the non-parole period expires on 18 May 2026 the date upon which the offender is eligible for release to parole.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - killing in the course of armed robbery - Sentencing for murder after trial.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - Schedule 2 of Act 50 of 2007

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Frazer, R v Spencer [2007] NSWSC 1449

PARTIES: Regina v Kirrlie Shane Wilson

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/00002129001

COUNSEL: T Bailey - Crown
D Stewart - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
Ross Hill & Associates - Offender

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

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 4 APRIL 2008

2007/00002129001 R v KIRRLIE SHANE WILSON
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender Kirrlie Wilson was convicted by a jury of the charge of murder. The offence arose from the death of a man named Ric Anson in his bedroom in the early hours of 11 January 2005. Two co-offenders, William Spencer and Owen Frazer were convicted of the offence of manslaughter arising from the same incident. Spencer was sentenced to imprisonment for 13 years with a non-parole period of 9½ years and Frazer to imprisonment for 11 years with a non-parole period of 7½ years.

2 The facts are fully set out in the sentencing remarks for Frazer and Spencer and need not be repeated in the same detail for the purposes of sentencing this offender: see [2007] NSWSC 1449. Mr Stewart on behalf of his client argued that I should find facts consistent with the jury verdict but as they most favoured the offender. With respect, that is not the law. Although it may be possible to construe the verdict of the jury in a way that does not involve a positive finding that the offender was the person who shot the deceased, it is highly technical and very unlikely that this was what the jury found. True it is that the Crown did not assert whether the offender or Frazer shot the deceased. But the Crown did not have to do so in order to make out its case. The fact that the jury convicted the offender of murder but Frazer of manslaughter is in my view consistent only with their having found that the offender fired the weapon.

3 The deceased was a person engaged in trafficking in drugs. He had shortly before his death come into possession of a large amount of money as a result of an armed robbery committed by him. Spencer learned of this fact and determined to have it stolen…

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 Kirrlie Shane WILSON 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: [2008] NSWSC 238
Decision Date: 4 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wilson involved the appellant, Kirrlie Shane Wilson, who was convicted of murder following a trial. The incident took place during an armed robbery where Wilson's actions led to the death of the victim. The case was brought before the court to determine the appropriate sentence for the crime of murder, considering the particular circumstances of the robbery and the resulting fatality.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the severity of the crime, the role of Wilson during the armed robbery, and the appropriate sentence that would reflect the gravity of the offence. The court had to weigh the mitigating and aggravating factors, including Wilson's involvement in the crime, his role during the incident, and any personal circumstances that might impact the sentencing. Additionally, the court needed to ensure the sentence was commensurate with similar cases and adhered to the principles of justice and proportionality.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the evidence presented during the trial, the nature of the crime, and the impact on the victim and their family. The court emphasised the seriousness of armed robbery and the additional gravity when it results in loss of life. After careful deliberation, the court determined that the sentence should reflect the heinous nature of the crime while also taking into account any mitigating factors. The final sentence imposed by the court was a term of imprisonment, recognising the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court's orders included the imposition of a specific term of imprisonment for Wilson, reflecting the court's assessment of the crime's severity and the need for justice. The exact length of the sentence was detailed in the judgment, ensuring clarity and finality in the legal matter.

Orders