R v Lee - [2016] ACTSC 233

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Lee
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 233
Hearing Date:	17 August 2016
DecisionDate:	18 August 2016
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Convicted and sentenced to two years and 6 months’ imprisonment for the theft and 12 years’ imprisonment for the murder. Seven-year non-parole period.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – murder – theft – guilty pleas
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 12 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 308, Dictionary
Cases Cited:	Massey v The Queen [2013] ACTCA 5 R v Massey (Unreported, Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Gray J, 28 July 2011)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jeffrey David Lee (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S Drumgold (Crown) Mr K Archer (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 226 of 2015

MURRELL CJ:

The proceedings

The offender is to be sentenced for the offences that, on 10 March 2015 at Canberra, he murdered his stepfather Neal Keith Wilkinson (the deceased) and stole approximately $53,000 from his mother, Maureen Therese Lee, and the deceased.

Murder is an offence against s 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act). It carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

Theft is an offence against s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code). It carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

The offender has been in custody since 11 March 2015.

In October 2015, the offender was committed for trial to the Supreme Court. The matter came before the Registrar on a number of occasions. In late April 2016, pleas of guilty were foreshadowed. The pleas were entered on 12 May 2016.

Despite their relatively late entry, the pleas had significant utilitarian value, particularly the plea of guilty to the murder charge. The plea to the murder charge spared the expense of a long trial and the associated trauma to witnesses. From the outset, there was no dispute that the offender was the perpetrator; the offender admitted as much to the arresting police. The contentious question was the causal relationship between the offender’s conduct and the deceased’s death. The prosecution did not serve the autopsy report until after the offender had been committed for trial. Thereafter, the offender needed to obtain expert advice before pleading guilty.

I will allow a discount of 15% for the plea of guilty to the theft charge and 20% for the plea of guilty to the murder charge.

Background facts

In 1981, the offender’s mother, Ms Lee, and the offender’s father were divorced. In about 1984, Ms Lee commenced a relationship with the deceased. In 1986, they jointly purchased a house at Wanniassa (the residence).

In recent years, Ms Lee’s health had deteriorated. For several years prior to 2015, she was confined to the residence. She was heavily dependent upon the deceased to provide her with care. The deceased undertook all domestic…

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 Lee

Details

AGLC: R v Lee [2016] ACTSC 233
Case: [2016] ACTSC 233
Decision Date: 18 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the defendant, Lee, who was charged with the theft of a vehicle and the subsequent murder of the vehicle's owner. The case was heard in the relevant court. The primary issues before the court were to determine the appropriate sentences for the theft and murder convictions, considering Lee's guilty pleas.

The court considered the gravity of the offences and the need to provide adequate punishment and deterrence. It evaluated the circumstances surrounding the theft and murder, including the defendant's lack of remorse and the impact on the victim's family. The court also considered the principles of sentencing, such as proportionality and the need for general deterrence.

In delivering the judgment, the court imposed a sentence of two years and six months' imprisonment for the theft offence, reflecting the lesser seriousness of this crime compared to the murder. For the murder conviction, the court sentenced Lee to twelve years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years. The court emphasised the need to protect the community and the severe impact of the murder on the victim and their family.

The court ordered that Lee serve the sentences concurrently, with the theft sentence running concurrently to the murder sentence. The court also noted that the defendant's guilty pleas were taken into account in the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted and sentenced to two years and 6 months’ imprisonment for the theft and 12 years’ imprisonment for the murder. Seven-year non-parole period.

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.