R v Lambert, Peter James - [2012] NSWSC 94

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v LAMBERT, Peter James [2012] NSWSC 94
Hearing dates: 17/10/11 - 21/10/11; 24/10/11 - 31/10/11 03/02/2012
Decision date: 24 February 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Grove AJ
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 18 years commencing on 24 February 2010 and expiring on 23 February 2028 with a balance term of six years commencing on 24 February 2028.
The effective total sentence is imprisonment for 24 years.
The earliest date for release to parole is specified as 23 February 2028.

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina - Crown
Peter James Lambert - Offender
Representation: G Tabuteau - Crown
C Davenport SC - Offender
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid Commission

File Number(s): 2010/49484

Judgment

Peter James Lambert, you stand for sentence after being found guilty by a jury of the murder of Mark Daniel Coughlan. At trial, you denied performing the killing and have maintained that denial. It will be necessary to find facts, not inconsistent with the verdict, for the purpose of imposition of sentence. Observations of your continuing denial of responsibility should not be taken as an expression by me of doubt as to the correctness of the jury verdict.

While there is considerable evidence, much of it undisputed, about your conduct after Mark Coughlan's death, your motive can only be speculated and there is limited evidence about the circumstances in which the killing occurred.

The offender and the deceased were acquainted. The latter resided in a housing commission unit in a very large complex situated at Waterloo. In about December 2009, for a rental payment to the deceased, the offender moved in to occupy the second bedroom of the unit.

Both were users of illicit drugs. The deceased engaged as well in some trafficking, the extent of which I do not determine.

Mark Coughlan was alive on the evening of Tuesday 16 February 2010 when he was visited by a friend, Michael Maugeri, who left at about 10.30 pm.

I am satisfied to the necessary standard that during the night, after Michael Maugeri's departure, the offender attacked the victim with a drum kit stand using it to strike multiple blows to his head. The Crown submits that I should find that Mark Coughlan was asleep at the time he was attacked and pointed to the evidence of a conversation while the trial was pending between the offender and a cellmate, Michael Kerr. I am also alert to the fact that when the body was discovered eventually, a sock had been stuffed into the deceased's mouth. I do not disbelieve Mr Kerr and I am conscious of the absence of post-mortem findings suggesting that a struggle had taken place but I am not satisfied that the evidence suffices to establish to the necessary standard that Mark Coughlan was in fact asleep. I am satisfied that, whether asleep, in a doze or otherwise, at the time of infliction of the first of multiple blows with the…

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 Lambert, Peter James

Details

AGLC: R v Lambert, Peter James [2012] NSWSC 94
Case: [2012] NSWSC 94
Decision Date: 24 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales dealt with the sentencing of Peter James Lambert, who had been found guilty of the murder of Mark Daniel Coughlan. The court considered the evidence of the crime, which included the use of a drum kit stand as a weapon, and the subsequent disposal of the victim's body. The offender had denied any involvement in the killing, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including CCTV footage and the discovery of the murder weapon and items used to conceal the crime. The court examined the circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, and the impact of the crime on the victim's family.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the offender, considering the gravity of the crime and the mitigating factors presented. The court needed to determine the length of the non-parole period and the balance term of the sentence. The court also had to consider whether the offence was aggravated by the use of a weapon or the domestic setting and whether there were any special circumstances that warranted a variation from the standard non-parole period.

The court determined that the use of a weapon and the domestic setting did not elevate the offence beyond the inherent seriousness of a killing by striking. The offender's background, including a history of drug use and a disruptive childhood, was considered but did not significantly mitigate the sentence. The court found that the offender's denial of responsibility and lack of remorse indicated a low prospect of rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence of 18 years non-parole and 6 years balance term, resulting in an effective total sentence of 24 years imprisonment. The non-parole period was set to expire on 23 February 2028, with the earliest possible release on parole on the same date.

In summary, the court imposed a sentence of 18 years non-parole and 6 years balance term, resulting in an effective total sentence of 24 years imprisonment. The offender will be eligible for parole on 23 February 2028. The court considered the severity of the crime, the offender's background, and the impact on the victim's family in arriving at this sentence.

Orders