R v Laurence Bede O'Connor

Case [2008] NSWSC 1297


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 2008
JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Criminal List
JUDGMENT 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 Act
CATEGORY: 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 762
PARTIES: Regina
Laurence Bede O'Connor
FILE 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 LIST

      Studdert AJ

      Friday 5 December 2008

      2008/7137 Regina v Laurence Bede O’Connor

      JUDGMENT

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

Details
AGLC
R v Laurence Bede O'Connor [2008] NSWSC 1297
Case
[2008] NSWSC 1297
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Laurence Bede O'Connor was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, where the appellant, Laurence Bede O'Connor, contested the sentence imposed upon him following his conviction for murder. O'Connor was found guilty of the murder of a woman in Sydney and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The central issue in this appeal was whether the primary judge had adequately considered certain statutory factors outlined in Part 4 Division 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 when determining the length of the non-parole period. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to the primary judge's failure to properly weigh these statutory considerations.

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.