R v Lane

Case [2011] NSWSC 289 15 April 2011

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Keli LANE [2011] NSWSC 289
Hearing dates: 9 August 2010 - 13 December 2010
Decision date: 15 April 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Whealy JA
Decision:
(1) For the offence of false swearing committed on 3 rd April 1995, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment for 9 months, such sentence to date from 13 th December 2010, and to expire on 12 th September 2011.

(2) For the offence of false swearing committed on or about 29 th April 1995, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment for 9 months, such sentence to date from 13 th December 2010, and to expire on 12 th September 2011.

(3) For the offence of false swearing committed on or about 13 th September 1999, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment for 12 months, such sentence to date from 13 th February 2011, and to expire on 12 th February 2012.
(4) For the murder of Tegan Lane, I sentence you to a non-parole period of 13 years and 5 months, to date from 13 th December 2010 and to expire on 12 th May 2024, with a balance of term of 4 years and 7 months. The balance of term is to commence on 13 th May 2024, and is to expire on 12 th December 2028.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - Child murder - factors influencing objective seriousness - intention to kill - absence of premeditation - relatively spontaneous decision - presence of personality disorder - factors relevant to sentencing - youth and immaturity - rehabilitation - good character - unlikelihood of re-offending - excessive media attention - unavailability of standard non-parole period legislation - sentencing pattern at time of offence - delay in prosecution - protective custody - effect on child of offender - whether exceptional circumstances.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - Standard non-parole period legislation not retrospective to date of offence - principles applicable.
CRIMINAL LAW - False swearing - adoption proceedings - need for father's consent - seriousness of offence - no need to accumulate sentences on punishment for murder.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 ss 18(1)(a), 330
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2007 s 44(2)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Cases Cited: R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168 at [86] - [93]
Lodhi v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 121; 199 FLR 303 at [22] - [56] per Spigelman CJ
R v JS [2007] NSWCCA 272; 175 A Crim R 108 at [30] - [45] per Spigelman CJ
R v Young [1999] NSWCCA 166; 46 NSWLR 681
R v MJR [2002] NSWCCA 129; 54 NSWLR 368
Dousha v R [2008] NSWCCA 263
GRD v R [2009] NSWCCA 149 at [20] per Buddin J
Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185 at [65]
Elyard v R [2006] NSWCCA 43 at [18] - [20]
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172 at [18]
Shore v R (1992) 66 A Crim…

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 Lane

Details

AGLC: R v Lane [2011] NSWSC 289
Case: [2011] NSWSC 289
Decision Date: 15 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lane, the appellant was convicted of the murder of his infant son. The dispute centred around the sentencing of the appellant, specifically the applicability of the standard non-parole period for such a crime. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court were whether the absence of premeditation and the presence of mitigating factors such as the appellant's youth, immaturity, good character, and likelihood of rehabilitation could lead to a non-standard non-parole period being imposed. The court also considered the excessive media attention and delay in prosecution as factors influencing the sentencing.

The court held that while the appellant's personality disorder and the relatively spontaneous nature of the crime were significant mitigating factors, the absence of premeditation was not sufficient to warrant a departure from the standard non-parole period. The court found that the appellant's age and immaturity at the time of the offence, as well as the likelihood of rehabilitation, were relevant but not determinative. The court also considered the unavailability of the standard non-parole period legislation at the time of the offence, and the sentencing pattern for child murder cases at that time. The court determined that the delay in prosecution and the excessive media attention did not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the standard non-parole period. The court further held that the seriousness of the offence of child murder meant that the appellant should not benefit from the accumulation of sentences for the false swearing offence.

The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant, rejecting the argument that the mitigating factors warranted a non-standard non-parole period. The court held that the standard non-parole period legislation did not apply retrospectively to the date of the offence, and that the principles applicable to sentencing in such cases were well-established. The court also held that the seriousness of the offence of child murder meant that the appellant should not benefit from the accumulation of sentences for the false swearing offence. The court's decision sets an important precedent for the sentencing of child murderers in Australia, and highlights the importance of considering both aggravating and mitigating factors in such cases.

Orders