Legal Research
Cases
R v Lloyd

R v Lloyd

Case [2022] NSWSC 906 15 July 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lloyd [2022] NSWSC 906
Hearing dates: 1 July 2022
Date of orders: 15 July 2022
Decision date: 15 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1) The offender is convicted of the murder of Lynda Greenwood.
(2) The offender is sentenced to 25 years and 6 months imprisonment commencing on 20 October 2020 and expiring on 19 April 2046.
(3) I fix a non-parole period of 19 years and 1 month imprisonment, commencing on 20 October 2020 and expiring on 19 November 2039.
(4) The offender will be eligible for parole on 20 November 2039 and his sentence will expire on 19 April 2046.
(5) I advise you of s 25C of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) and of its application to this offence.

Catchwords:
Criminal law – Sentence – Murder committed at the front door of the victim’s premises in the context of a long history of domestic violence – Where the offender intended to kill the victim – Use of two separate weapons – Offending in breach of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order put in place for the protection of the victim – Where offender’s criminal history included previous domestic violence offending – Offending above the mid-range of objective seriousness – Offender’s background supporting a slight reduction in moral culpability – Plea of guilty entitling the offender to a discount of 25% - Subjective case otherwise limited – Need for general and personal deterrence and denunciation
Criminal Law – Offending committed in breach of Apprehended Domestic Violence Order – Observations as to the nature of such orders and the necessity for compliance with their terms – Breaches of such orders to be treated seriously by the Courts – Breach in the present case to be given full weight as a circumstance of aggravation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Ryde Local Court (2005) 62 NSWLR 512; [2005] NSWCA 101
R v Cherry [2017] NSWCCA 150
R v Goodbun [2018] NSWSC 1025
R v King [2013] NSWSC 801
R v Le (No. 2) [2019] NSWSC 763
R v Lulham [2016] NSWCCA 287
R v Medich (No. 43) [2018] NSWSC 886
R v Rae [2001] NSWCCA 545
R v Robinson [2007] NSWSC 460
R v Shankley [2003] NSWCCA 253
R v Yavuz (No. 6) [2019] NSWSC 95
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1998) 164 CLR 465; [1998] HCA 14
ZZ v R [2013] NSWCCA 83

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina – Crown
Jason Lloyd - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
D Scully – Crown
A Evers – Offender
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions, NSW – Crown
Legal Aid NSW – Offender

File Number(s): 2020/301156
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

Jason Lloyd (the offender) has pleaded guilty to a…

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 Lloyd

Details

AGLC: R v Lloyd [2022] NSWSC 906
Case: [2022] NSWSC 906
Decision Date: 15 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lloyd involved the sentencing of the offender, Lloyd, who had committed the murder of his victim at the front door of her premises. The incident occurred in the context of a long history of domestic violence between the parties. Lloyd intended to kill the victim and used two separate weapons in the commission of the offence. The offender was in breach of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order put in place for the protection of the victim. Lloyd's criminal history included previous domestic violence offending. The court assessed the objective seriousness of the offending as being above the mid-range, while the offender’s background supported a slight reduction in moral culpability. Lloyd’s plea of guilty entitled him to a discount of 25%. The court considered the need for general and personal deterrence and denunciation.

The central legal issues for the court to decide involved the appropriate sentence for Lloyd, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case. The court had to weigh the objective seriousness of the offence against Lloyd's background and criminal history, as well as the impact of his breach of the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. The court also had to determine the appropriate level of discount for Lloyd's plea of guilty and the need for general and personal deterrence and denunciation. In reaching its decision, the court considered the purpose of sentencing, which includes the denunciation of the offending, the protection of society, and the rehabilitation of the offender.

The court found that the murder committed by Lloyd was of significant objective seriousness, given the lethal nature of the attack and the use of two separate weapons. The breach of the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order was treated as a serious aggravating factor, highlighting the importance of compliance with such orders in protecting victims of domestic violence. The court also considered Lloyd’s background, which supported a slight reduction in moral culpability. However, the court noted that Lloyd's criminal history, including previous domestic violence offending, did not significantly mitigate the severity of the current offence. The court applied a 25% discount for Lloyd's plea of guilty. After considering all factors, the court determined that Lloyd's offending warranted a sentence above the mid-range of objective seriousness, balanced against the need for general and personal deterrence and denunciation. The court imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations.

In conclusion, the court ordered that Lloyd be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period set at [specific number] years. The sentence was designed to reflect the seriousness of the offence, the breach of the Apprehended Domestic Violence Order, and the need for general and personal deterrence and denunciation. The court also took into account Lloyd's background and the discount for his plea of guilty in determining the appropriate term of imprisonment.

Orders