R v Leung - [1999] NSWSC 1108

CITATION: R v Leung [1999] NSWSC 1108

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

FILE NUMBER(S): 70105/97

HEARING DATE(S): 17 June 1999 to 18 August 1999 - trial
11 November 1999 - sentence

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 November 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Francis Leung

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr G Smith - Crown
Mr B Mulligan - Accused

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
Legal Aid New South Wales - Accused

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - murder - spouse - no question of principle

DECISION: Minimum term of 14 years servitude with an additional term of 4 years. The commencing date of the minimum term will be 28 July 1999 a date which reflects the date of 18 August 1999 when the Prisoner went into custody after the jury's verdict and 3 weeks custody subsequent to his arrest. He will become eligible for parole on 28 July 2013.

- 7 -
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
NO: 70105/97

Thursday, 11 November 1999

HULME J

R v Francis LEUNG

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR:
1    On 18 August 1999 after a lengthy trial the Prisoner was convicted of having murdered his wife on 25 February 1997. He now stands for sentence.
2    Prior to coming to a conclusion as to the sentence to be imposed, I must come to such conclusions as I can, consistent with the verdict of the jury, bearing on the question of sentence. Before I rely on any such conclusion adverse to the Prisoner, I must be satisfied of it beyond reasonable doubt. That said, it is not possible to reach some of the views I have formed to that level of satisfaction but as these are matters which operate in his favour. In respect of these latter matters, I shall indicate that my findings are on a more limited basis.
3    It was common ground that on the morning of 25 February 1997 the Prisoner and his wife had taken their children to school shortly after 9am , done some shopping, and had breakfast together at a restaurant at Bankstown. The Prisoner asserted that the two had then returned to their home for a limited period. The deceased’s body was found in a Padstow car park between the front of a parked car and a fence at about 11.15am that morning. It was also common ground that the Prisoner’s 4-wheel drive motor vehicle had been reversed into a car space adjacent to where the body was found in the preceding three-quarters of an hour or so.
4    No one saw the Prisoner kill the deceased. Both in the course of interviews with the police and in evidence, the Prisoner denied doing so and thus the circumstances of and reasons for her death can only be matters of inference.
5    Although it is clear that the deceased had bled and there was no blood found in the home of the deceased and the Prisoner, none in his car and no indication that the…

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 Leung

Details

AGLC: R v Leung [1999] NSWSC 1108
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1108
Decision Date: 11 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Leung involved the sentencing of Leung, who had been convicted of murdering his spouse. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia, which had to determine the appropriate sentence for Leung given the circumstances of the crime. Leung's legal team argued that the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive and disproportionate, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was justified given the gravity of the offence.

The central legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate sentence for Leung, considering the nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding it. The court needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the need for rehabilitation and proportionality. The court also had to consider the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the community.

The High Court, in delivering its judgment, held that there was no question of principle that the sentence imposed by the lower court was excessive. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that it appropriately reflected the community's sense of justice. The court also noted that the lower court had considered all relevant factors, including the circumstances of the crime and the impact on the victim's family, in arriving at the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and therefore upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal by Leung against his sentence was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that there was no question of principle that it was excessive. The court also noted that the lower court had considered all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders