Legal Research
Cases
R v Mulvihill

R v Mulvihill

Case [2014] NSWSC 443 16 April 2014

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Mulvihill [2014] NSWSC 443
Hearing dates: 28/03/2014; 3-4/04/2014
Decision date: 16 April 2014
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 29 years, comprised of a non-parole period of 22 years commencing on 16 February 2013 and expiring on 15 February 2035, with a balance of term of 7 years expiring on 15 February 2042. First eligible for release to parole on 15 February 2035.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - jury verdict - stabbing with intention to kill - fact finding after trial - no premeditation but not impulsive or spontaneous - above mid range of objective seriousness - no remorse - guarded prospects of rehabilitation - no special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Barbaro v R; Zirilli v R [2014] HCA 2
Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194
Bugmy v R [1990] HCA 18; 169 CLR 525
Hili v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
James v R [2014] HCA 6
MAH v R [2006] NSWCCA 226
McLaren v R [2012] NSWCCA 284
Pemble v R [1971] HCA 20; 124 CLR 107
R v Gittany (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 49
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; 90 A Crim R 587
R v JCW [2000] NSWCCA 209; 112 A Crim R 466
R v Muldrock [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Paul Darren Mulvihill (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
M Cinque (Crown)
K Traill (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Bosscher Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2012/222491

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: On 10 March 2014 the offender was convicted after trial of the murder of Rachelle Yeo at her home in North Curl Curl on the evening of 16 July 2012. She was aged 31.

Murder carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. It also attracts a standard non-parole period of 20 years. The maximum penalty of life imprisonment is reserved for a murder where the culpability of the offender is so extreme that the community's legitimate interest in a combination of all, or any, of the indicia in s 61(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), each of which in different ways focuses on the protection of the community, compel the conclusion that the only sentence that can be imposed is imprisonment for life. The Crown submitted that the murder of Ms Yeo, whilst an offence of very considerable gravity, was not an offence that could properly attract a life sentence. I accept that submission.

The standard non-parole period is the period during which a person has no entitlement to be released to parole. Where it applies (as it does in this case) it represents a hypothetical offence in the middle of the range of objective seriousness. That assessment is confined to an assessment of the objective features…

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 Mulvihill

Details

AGLC: R v Mulvihill [2014] NSWSC 443
Case: [2014] NSWSC 443
Decision Date: 16 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a conviction for murder against the appellant, who had been found guilty by a jury for stabbing a person with the intent to kill. The case was heard in the appellate division of the Supreme Court of a state, where the appellant challenged the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court. The central legal issues for the court to determine were the appropriate sentence to be imposed and whether the lower court had erred in its assessment of the facts and in its sentencing decision.

The court examined the evidence and the submissions made by both parties, focusing on the nature of the crime, the appellant's culpability, and the sentencing principles applicable to such cases. The court highlighted that while the offence was not premeditated, it was neither impulsive nor spontaneous. It was of significant gravity, warranting a sentence above the mid-range of objective seriousness. The court also took into account the appellant's lack of remorse and the guarded prospects of rehabilitation, as well as the absence of any special circumstances that might have warranted a lesser sentence. The court determined that the lower court had correctly assessed the relevant factors and that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate.

The appellate court found that the lower court had appropriately exercised its discretion in sentencing the appellant, and therefore dismissed the appeal against sentence. The court confirmed the original sentence imposed by the lower court, which was deemed to be both fair and just given the circumstances of the case. This decision reinforces the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing in murder cases, taking into account the severity of the offence, the offender's culpability, and the prospects of rehabilitation.

Orders