R v Lo - [2000] NSWSC 714

Reported Decision: 115 A Crim R 53

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v LO [2000] NSWSC 714 revised - 21/07/2000

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70009/00

HEARING DATE(S): 06/07/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 21 July 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v Wai Hung Anthony LO

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: W Robinson QC
Offender: GJ Stanton

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Offender: Jack Rigg

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - murder and conspiracy to murder - whether in worst category of cases - whether offender entitled to lesser sentence for assistance to authorities.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 19A.
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 21, s 23, s 32, s 61.

CASES CITED: R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76

DECISION: See paragraphs 56 and 57.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
GRAHAM BARR J
Friday, 21 July 2000
70009/00 - REGINA v Wai Hung Anthony LO
SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Wai Hung Anthony Lo, has pleaded guilty to the murder on 20 February 1998 of Albert Brikha and to the conspiracy with Toufic Zreika and Hesham Turkmani on 25 March 1998 to murder Raphael Bessounian. The offender has asked the Court in sentencing to take account under the provisions of s 32 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the following offences -

1. the supply on 30 November 1998 at Roselands of two tablets of Nexus to undercover police;

2. the supply on 16 December 1998 at Miranda of two tablets of methylamphetamine;
3. the supply between 28 January and 24 February 1999 to undercover police at Sydney of methylamphetamine three times within thirty days;
4. the possession on 3 February 1999 at Sydney of a pump-action shotgun;
5. the supply on 8 March 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands to undercover police of twenty tablets of amphetamine and ketamine;
6. the supply on 24 March 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands to undercover police of twenty tablets of amphetamine and ketamine;
7. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Liverpool of fourteen rohypnol tablets;
8. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of an imitation Berretta pistol;
9. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of an imitation of a Sig Sauer pistol;
10. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of a Cobra spear gun;
11. the possession on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of twelve tablets of amphetamine; and
12. the supply on 7 April 1999 at Brighton-Le-Sands of 3.99 grams of methylamphetamine.
2 The offender is twenty-nine years old. He began working as a panel beater and completed his apprenticeship in 1993. Eventually he set up his own business. The business did not do well and he began to supplement his income by working as a security guard at nightclubs in Sydney. As he did so he encountered certain people he had met during the course of his work as a panel beater, including Colin Kaddour, “Big” Hicham Kaddour, Hesham Turkmani and his brother Bassam…

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 Lo

Details

AGLC: R v Lo [2000] NSWSC 714
Case: [2000] NSWSC 714
Decision Date: 21 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the appellant, Lo, who was convicted of both murder and conspiracy to murder. The nature of the dispute was the sentencing to be imposed on Lo, with the prosecution arguing for the maximum penalty, and Lo seeking a lesser sentence on the basis of providing assistance to the authorities. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentencing decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether Lo's case fell into the worst category of murder cases, thereby warranting the maximum penalty, and whether Lo was entitled to a lesser sentence for his assistance to the authorities. The court had to consider the circumstances of the crime, the degree of Lo's involvement, and the extent of his cooperation with the authorities. The court also needed to weigh the principle of deterrence against the mitigating factor of Lo's assistance.

The court considered that Lo's crime was indeed heinous and fell into the worst category of murder cases. However, the court also acknowledged Lo's cooperation with the authorities, which played a significant role in solving the crime. The court concluded that, while Lo's actions were reprehensible, his assistance to the authorities warranted a lesser sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive and reduced the sentence to reflect the mitigating factor of Lo's assistance.

The court ordered that Lo's sentence be reduced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period, reflecting the court's consideration of both the severity of the crime and the mitigating factor of Lo's cooperation with the authorities. The court's decision highlighted the need to balance the principles of deterrence and retribution with the recognition of an offender's assistance to the authorities in the administration of justice.

Orders