Legal Research
Cases
R v Loveridge

R v Loveridge

Case [2013] NSWSC 1638 8 November 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Loveridge [2013] NSWSC 1638
Hearing dates: 25/10/13
Decision date: 08 November 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
The offender is convicted and sentenced as follows:
(1) For the third count, the offence of assaulting Matthew Serrao, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 4 months commencing on 18th September 2012 and expiring on 17th January 2013;
(2) For the fourth count, the offence of assaulting Rhyse Saliba, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 4 months commencing on 18th November 2012 and expiring on 17th March 2013;
(3) For the fifth count, the offence of assaulting Aden Gazi, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 4 months commencing on 18th March 2013 and expiring on 17th July 2013;
(4) For the second count, the offence of assaulting Marco Compagnoni occasioning him actual bodily harm, I sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months commencing on 18th May 2013 and expiring on 17th November 2013;
(5) For the first count, the manslaughter of Thomas Kelly, I sentence you to a term of imprisonment having a non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 18th November 2013 and expiring on 17th November 2017, with an additional term of 2 years commencing on 18th November 2017 and expiring on 17th November 2019.
The earliest date on which you will be eligible for release on parole is 18th November 2017.
The total effect of sentence therefore is one of 7 years and 2 months with an effective non-parole period of 5 years and 2 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - guilty pleas - three charges of common assault - one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm - one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Donaczy v R [2010] NSWCCA 143
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
KT v R [2008] NSWCCA 51
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
R v Bashford [2007] NSWSC 1380
R v Castle [2012] NSWSC 1603
R v Dang [1999] NSWCCA 42
R v Dawes [2004] NSWCCA 363
R v Greenhalgh [2001] NSWCCA 437
R v McDonald (Unrep, 12/12/1995 NSWCCA)
R v O'Hare [2003] NSWSC 652
R v Risteski [1999] NSWSC 1248
R v Smith [2008] NSWSC 201
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14 164 CLR 465
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Kieran Loveridge
Representation: Counsel:
PE Barrett (Crown)
MD Austin with LC Hutchinson (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/223921

Judgment

The offender, Kieran Loveridge, has pleaded guilty to an indictment containing five counts of offending, all of which occurred on 7th July 2012 at Kings Cross, part of the suburb…

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 Loveridge

Details

AGLC: R v Loveridge [2013] NSWSC 1638
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1638
Decision Date: 08 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Loveridge, was before the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appeal was against a sentence imposed following his conviction on three charges of common assault, one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The sentencing judge had imposed a total effective sentence of nine years imprisonment. The defendant challenged the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were the principles to be applied in sentencing an offender who has pleaded guilty to multiple charges of violence, and the appropriate sentence for the most serious charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act. The court needed to consider the totality principle, which requires that the overall sentence should not be greater than the sum of the sentences that would have been imposed for each offence if dealt with separately, as well as the particular circumstances of the offences and the offender. The court also needed to determine whether the sentence for the manslaughter charge was appropriate, given the circumstances of the offence and the defendant's criminal history.

The court noted that the defendant had a history of violent offending, including previous convictions for assault and weapons offences. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the totality principle, but had erred in imposing a sentence that was too severe for the manslaughter charge. The court held that the appropriate sentence for the manslaughter charge was five years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. The court reduced the overall sentence to eight years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years. The court noted that the defendant's guilty pleas and cooperation with the police had been taken into account in determining the sentence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of eight years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years. The court held that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentence for the manslaughter charge was inappropriate. The court noted that the defendant's guilty pleas and cooperation with the police had been taken into account in determining the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality principle and the particular circumstances of each offence and the offender when imposing a sentence.

Orders