R v Lockett - [2013] NSWSC 1555

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lockett [2013] NSWSC 1555
Hearing dates: 28-31 May, 3-4 June, 20 September 2013
Decision date: 25 October 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Price J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 years consisting of a non-parole period of 13 years which is to commence on 18 November 2010 and is to expire on 17 November 2023. I set a balance of term of 5 years which is to commence on 18 November 2023 and will expire on 17 November 2028. The earliest date of eligibility for your release to parole is 17 November 2023.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - murder - parity - finding of special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
s 21A(2)(j), s 21A(3)(g)-(i)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Green v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462; (2011) 86 ALJR 36
Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60; (2010) 77 NSWLR 540
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120; (2011) 281 ALR 652
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Lockett [2013] NSWSC 859
R v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Samuel Lockett
Representation: Counsel:
Mr P Leask (Crown)
Mr C Smith (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms A Holloway â€“ Office of Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr A Jawas â€“ Australian Criminal Law Specialist

File Number(s): 2010/384692

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Samuel Lockett (the offender) has been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Wallace Ruiz-Sanchez on 12 October 2010.

Mr Ruiz-Sanchez died when he was struck on the head with a shotgun by the offender which then discharged, mortally wounding him. At the time of his death he was 38 years old.

The maximum penalty for the crime of murder is imprisonment for life. A standard non-parole period has been prescribed of twenty years imprisonment. Those two guideposts are to be borne in mind when the court comes to a consideration of the appropriate penalty, having regard to the objective circumstances of the offence and the subjective features of the offender: Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120; (2011) 281 ALR 652.

Although the offender was individually tried before a jury, Carl Brown was also found guilty by a jury of the murder of the deceased in a separate trial. Richard Barnes, Bradley Owen Trawin-Hadfield and Kirk Daniel Tuivaga pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of the deceased which was accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment charging them with murder. With no disrespect to these offenders, I will refer to them furthermore by their surnames during these sentencing remarks.

In…

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 Lockett

Details

AGLC: R v Lockett [2013] NSWSC 1555
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1555
Decision Date: 25 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lockett involved the sentencing of the appellant, who had been convicted of murder. The issue before the High Court of Australia was whether the trial judge erred in the process of sentencing by considering the absence of special circumstances, such as mercy, when determining the sentence of life imprisonment. The appellant argued that the trial judge's consideration of the absence of special circumstances violated the principle of parity, which mandates that all murder cases be treated equally in sentencing. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge's approach to sentencing was consistent with the requirements of the law.

The court examined the principle of parity and the role of special circumstances in the sentencing of murder. It held that the trial judge did not err in considering the absence of special circumstances, as this was an appropriate factor in determining the appropriate penalty for the crime committed. The court found that the principle of parity did not require that all murder cases be sentenced identically but rather that they be sentenced in a manner consistent with the principles of justice and the nature of the crime. The court further held that the trial judge's consideration of special circumstances was not an error that warranted the overturning of the sentence. The reasoning was that the trial judge was required to consider all relevant factors in determining an appropriate penalty, and the absence of special circumstances was a valid consideration.

In conclusion, the High Court held that the trial judge did not err in considering the absence of special circumstances in the sentencing of the appellant. The court upheld the principle that all relevant factors must be considered in determining an appropriate penalty for a crime, and the absence of special circumstances was a valid factor in this case. The sentence of life imprisonment was therefore affirmed. The court did not order any further action to be taken in relation to the appellant's sentence.

Orders