CITATION: R v Laurence Bede O'Connor [2008] NSWSC 1297 HEARING DATE(S): 29/09/08, 30/09/08, 1/10/08-3/10/08, 8/10/08-10/10/08, 14/10/08-16/10/08, 4/12/08
JUDGMENT DATE :
5 December 2008JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Criminal ListJUDGMENT OF: Studdert AJ DECISION: Laurence Bede O’Connor, for the murder of Flordelizza O’Connor I sentence you to a non-parole period of 16 years commencing on the 7th September 2007 and expiring on the 6th September 2023 and to a balance of term of 5 years commencing on the 7th September 2023 and expiring on the 6th September 2028. The earliest date upon which you will be eligible for release on parole will be 6th September 2023. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Murder - Consideration of Part 4 Division 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes ActCATEGORY: Sentence CASES CITED: Michael Larry Percy v R (2006) 164 ACR 93
R v AJ P [2004] 150 A Crim R 575
R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
R v Holyoak [1995] 82 A Crim R 502
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v King [2004] NSWCCA 444
R v Previtera [1997] 94 A Crim R 76
R v Toki [2003] NSWCCA 125
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Youmaran [2008] NSWSC 762PARTIES: Regina
Laurence Bede O'ConnorFILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/7137 COUNSEL: Mr M Fox (Crown)
Mr E Wilson (Accused)SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Accused)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LISTStuddert AJ
Friday 5 December 2008
JUDGMENT2008/7137 Regina v Laurence Bede O’Connor
1 HIS HONOUR: Upon the presentation of an indictment before this Court charging him with the murder of his wife Flordelizza O’Connor, the offender Laurence Bede O’Connor pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The plea offered by the offender was not acceptable to the Crown and the trial here in Dubbo proceeded accordingly. The only live issue at the trial was provocation, an issue determined by the jury against the offender. The jury found the offender guilty of murder and the offender is now to be sentenced for the commission of this crime.
2 The crime was committed on a property called Quandalli near Tooraweenah on the 7th July 2007. On that date the offender shot his wife twice, thereby causing her death. Two months after the shooting, the offender admitted to police officers what he had done, and showed them where he had buried his wife’s body in a relatively isolated location on the property. Later in the early hours of the 8th September 2007, following his arrest, the offender participated in a lengthy interview in the police station in Dubbo, in which he admitted to the shooting. Then on the 9th September 2007 he returned with police officers to Quandalli participating in a “walk through” of the crime…
Continue reading R v Laurence Bede O'Connor
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Laurence Bede O'Connor [2008] NSWSC 1297
- Case
- [2008] NSWSC 1297
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine if the primary judge had erred in the way statutory sentencing principles were applied, particularly in relation to the need for denunciation, the gravity of the offence, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The appellant's counsel submitted that the sentence was disproportionate given the mitigating factors presented, and that the primary judge had not sufficiently addressed the statutory obligations. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that the sentence was appropriate and that the primary judge had correctly exercised their discretion by considering all relevant factors.
In delivering the judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal found that the primary judge had indeed failed to adequately consider the statutory factors as required by law. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentencing process aligns with legislative mandates, particularly when imposing a life sentence with a non-parole period. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the sentencing judge for reconsideration, with specific directions to address the statutory considerations more thoroughly. The court did not alter the finding of guilt but highlighted the necessity for a proper application of sentencing laws to ensure the sentence reflects the statutory framework.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.