R v Lock, Thomas - [2017] NSWSC 715

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lock, Thomas [2017] NSWSC 715
Hearing dates: 5 June 2017
Decision date: 05 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Latham J
Decision:
1 Sentenced to a term of imprisonment, comprising a non parole period of 27 years to date from 1 May 2014, expiring 30 April 2041, with a balance of term of 9 years, expiring 30 April 2050. Eligible for release to parole on 1 May 2041.
2 The charge set out in the s 166 certificate, tendered by the Crown on sentence, remitted to the Local Court for hearing.

Catchwords: MURDER – sentence – guilty by jury verdict - where the victim is a child – where there is intention to cause grievous bodily harm – where tendency evidence found beyond reasonable doubt – no issue of principle
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A
Cases Cited: Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132
Ross v R [2016] NSWCCA 176
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown (Crown)
Thomas Lock (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:

W Creasey SC (Crown)
G Scragg (Defendant)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Jefferys Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 14/131951
Publication restriction: NON-PUBLICATION ORDER RE IDENTITY OF DECEASED CHILD’S NAME TM, CHILD’S MOTHER MW AND NEPHEW DM AND NATURAL FATHER JM

sentence

Thomas Lock was convicted by a jury on 19 May 2017 of the murder of TM on 21 April 2014. TM, who was the daughter of the prisoner’s partner MW, was then two and a half years old. The prisoner and MW had resided in a de facto relationship, together with TM, for approximately three months at the time of TM’s death. On occasions, another relative DM, stayed at the unit.
The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and carries a standard non parole period of 25 years. The maximum penalty and the standard non parole period reflect the gravity with which the law regards the murder of a child of tender years. The standard non parole period applies to a notional offence which falls in the mid-range of objective gravity for offences of this kind. It falls to the court to assess the objective gravity of this offence, bearing in mind the operation of the standard non parole period and the maximum penalty as guideposts, before arriving at a sentence appropriate to the objective and subjective circumstances of the case.
Much of the evidence at trial was not in dispute. The single issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the prisoner inflicted the blunt force trauma to the abdomen of TM that resulted in massive internal bleeding leading to her death. There was ultimately no dispute about the cause of death, nor about the events of that Easter Sunday, 20 April 2014, up until the child was put to bed at about 7:00pm.
The most contentious aspect of the trial was the tendency evidence which was admitted against the prisoner, on…

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 Lock, Thomas

Details

AGLC: R v Lock, Thomas [2017] NSWSC 715
Case: [2017] NSWSC 715
Decision Date: 05 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a defendant, Thomas Lock, who was convicted by a jury for the murder of a child. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Lock's conviction. The legal issues at hand centred around the nature of the crime, particularly the intentional infliction of grievous bodily harm on a child, and the relevance of tendency evidence in the case. The court had to consider whether there were any issues of principle that would impact the sentencing process.

The court's reasoning focused on the severity of the crime and the specific circumstances surrounding the victim. It was noted that the victim was a child, which inherently heightens the moral reprehensibility of the act. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had the intention to cause grievous bodily harm, which was a critical factor in the sentencing decision. The court also considered the tendency evidence presented, which was found to be established beyond reasonable doubt and did not raise any issues of principle that would impact the sentencing.

Given the factors outlined, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for Lock's conviction was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years. This decision reflects the gravity of the crime and the need for deterrence and protection of society. The court did not find any issues of principle that would alter the sentencing guidelines in this case.

The final orders of the court were that Thomas Lock be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years. This sentence was imposed in accordance with the court's determination of the appropriate punishment for the crime committed.

Orders