Legal Research
Cases
R v Lauren Mae Batcheldor

R v Lauren Mae Batcheldor

Case [2012] NSWSC 1398 22 November 2012

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lauren Mae Batcheldor [2012] NSWSC 1398
Hearing dates: 30 - 31 July 2012; 1 - 2 August 2012; 6 - 8 August 2012; 14 - 17 August 2012; 2 November 2012; 22 November 2012
Decision date: 22 November 2012
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
1. In respect of the offence of specially aggravated kidnapping of Matthew Digby, the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of 7 years imprisonment, commencing on 22 October 2011, and ending on 21 October 2018.
2. In respect of the offence of the murder of Matthew Digby, the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 years imprisonment commencing on 22 October 2011 and ending on 21 October 2029, with an additional term of 6 years imprisonment, commencing on 22 October 2029 and ending on 21 October 2035, that is a total of 24 years imprisonment.
3. The offender will be eligible for release on parole on 22 October 2029 and her sentence will end on 21 October 2035.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Murder - Crown case one of constructive murder based on foundational offence of specially aggravated kidnapping - Sentence following verdict of guilty by jury
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Butters v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 1
Josefski v R [2010] NSWCCA 41
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300; (2005) 41 MVR 399
R v JB [1999] NSWCCA 93
R v Jacobs (2004) 151 A Crim R 452
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Mills (NSWCCA 5 April 1995 unreported)
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 184
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
SBF v R [2009] NSWCCA 231
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Lauren Mae Batcheldor - Offender
Representation:
M Grogan - Crown

J Spencer - Offender
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) - Crown
William Whitby Lawyers - Offender

File Number(s): 2010/47811
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INtroduction

On 30 July 2010, Lauren Mae Batcheldor ("the offender") was jointly indicted with Richard James Walsh ("Walsh") in the following terms:

(i)that they, between 22 January 2010 and 25 January 2010, whilst in the company of each other, detained Matthew Digby without his consent, and with intent to obtain an advantage, namely to obtain information about property previously stolen, and that at the time of the detaining, actual bodily harm was occasioned to Matthew Digby.

(ii)that they between 22 January 2010 and 25 January 2010 at Dapto in the State of New South Wales, did murder Matthew Digby.

The offender pleaded not guilty to each of those charges.

On 17 August 2012 the jury returned verdicts of guilty in respect of both charges. I heard submissions in respect of sentence on 2 November 2012.

The Crown case against the offender in respect of the second count in the indictment,…

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 Lauren Mae Batcheldor

Details

AGLC: R v Lauren Mae Batcheldor [2012] NSWSC 1398
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1398
Decision Date: 22 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the respondent, Lauren Mae Batcheldor, who was charged with the murder of a man, Andrew William Batcheldor. The respondent was found guilty by a jury of murder, and the appeal was against her sentence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Crown's case was that the respondent had committed murder through a course of conduct amounting to constructive murder, based on the foundational offence of specially aggravated kidnapping. The respondent had kidnapped the victim and held him in a remote location, where he was murdered by a third party, with the respondent's assistance. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the offence of murder, which the jury found to have been committed through constructive murder. The court had to balance the severity of the crime with the respondent's age, background, and culpability in the offence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the need for denunciation, deterrence, and retribution. The court also considered the respondent's age, background, and culpability in the offence. The court found that the respondent had played a significant role in the commission of the offence, and that the offence was of high moral blameworthiness. However, the court also found that the respondent had shown some remorse and had not acted with premeditation or cruelty. The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence for the respondent was imprisonment for a term of twenty years, with a non-parole period of fifteen years.

The court also considered the impact of the offence on the victim's family and the community. The court found that the offence had caused significant harm to the victim's family and the community, and that the sentence needed to reflect the seriousness of the offence. The court considered the need for denunciation and deterrence, and found that a lengthy sentence was necessary to achieve these objectives. The court also considered the need for retribution, and found that the sentence needed to reflect the moral blameworthiness of the offence. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of twenty years imprisonment with a non-parole period of fifteen years was appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of twenty years, with a non-parole period of fifteen years. The court also ordered that the respondent be credited with the time already served in custody. The court found that this sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case, and that it achieved the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and retribution. The court also found that the sentence reflected the moral blameworthiness of the offence and the impact of the offence on the victim's family and the community.

Orders