The Offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 28 years comprising a non-parole period of 21 years commencing on 13 July 2019 and expiring on 12 July 2040, with a balance of term of seven years commencing on 13 July 2040 and expiring on 12 July 2047.
The earliest date upon which the Offender will be eligible for release on parole is 13 July 2040.
Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – murder – offender found guilty following trial by jury – victim shot by offender – assessment of objective gravity of offence – offender took loaded firearm to premises where victim present – offender angered by victim’s violent conduct towards friend of offender - single shot fired followed by physical attack upon victim – offender acted with intention to cause really serious bodily injury but not to kill – finding of upper mid-range objective gravity – substantial moral culpability – offender on parole at time of offence for firearm offence – importance of specific and general deterrence – absence of contrition and remorse – substantial term of imprisonment imposed
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – agreed error in commencement date – slip rule applied – commencement date of sentence varied
[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 Krivosic (No. 7)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Krivosic (No. 7) [2022] NSWSC 507
Case
[2022] NSWSC 507
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case, the offender, Krivosic, was found guilty of murdering the victim after a trial by jury. Krivosic shot the victim after taking a loaded firearm to premises where the victim was present. The offender was angered by the victim’s violent conduct towards a friend of the offender, and subsequently fired a single shot before attacking the victim physically. Krivosic intended to cause serious bodily harm, but not to kill the victim. The court found the objective gravity of the offence to be in the upper mid-range and Krivosic to have substantial moral culpability. The offender was on parole at the time of the offence for a previous firearm offence. The importance of specific and general deterrence was considered, as was the absence of contrition and remorse from Krivosic. The court imposed a substantial term of imprisonment.
The legal issues before the court included the assessment of the objective gravity of the offence and the appropriate term of imprisonment. The court considered the offender’s culpability, the circumstances of the offence, the importance of specific and general deterrence, and the absence of contrition and remorse from the offender. The court also considered the offender’s prior criminal history, including the fact that the offender was on parole at the time of the offence. The court applied the principles of sentencing set out in relevant case law, including the need to balance the principles of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
The court found the objective gravity of the offence to be in the upper mid-range, reflecting the serious nature of the crime and the offender’s substantial moral culpability. The court also considered the importance of specific and general deterrence, and the absence of contrition and remorse from the offender. The court imposed a substantial term of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter the offender and others from engaging in similar conduct. The court also considered the offender’s prior criminal history and the fact that the offender was on parole at the time of the offence.
The court varied the commencement date of the sentence by applying the slip rule to an agreed error in the date. The court found that the error did not affect the overall sentence and that the slip rule was an appropriate means of correcting the error. The final orders of the court included the imposition of a substantial term of imprisonment and the variation of the commencement date of the sentence.