R v Newson (No 5) - [2021] NSWSC 1661

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Newson (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 1661
Hearing dates: 20 September 2021
Decision date: 17 December 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Ierace J
Decision:
(1) The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 19 years and 9 months and a balance of term of 7 years and 3 months. The total sentence is a term of imprisonment of 27 years, to date from 19 November 2018 and expiring on 18 November 2045. The offender will become eligible for release to parole when the non-parole period expires on 18 August 2038.
(2) Pursuant to s 12(2) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), direct that this offence be recorded on the offender’s criminal history as a domestic violence offence.
(3) The non-publication order made on 20 September 2021 pursuant to s 7(b) of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), that there be no publication of the content of the victim impact statement of Andrew Easton which has been read in these proceedings, is to operate for 15 years from today’s date.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – Murder – Trial by jury – Verdict of guilty to offence of murder – Where deceased’s death caused by blunt force trauma – Where offender and deceased in domestic relationship – Where evidence demonstrated offender was jealous and possessive of deceased – Whether intent to kill could be established by extent of injuries inflicted on deceased and offender’s expertise as a martial arts fighter – Where disposal of deceased’s body in bushland an aggravating factor – Where offender allegedly sexually assaulted as a child – Whether causal connection between offender’s history of child sexual assault and his issues of jealousy and anger – Whether moral culpability reduced by reason of offender’s alleged history of child sexual assault – Where offender subject to conditional liberty at the time of the offence – Where offender diagnosed with substance use disorder – Where offender’s prospects of rehabilitation guarded due to long-standing drug abuse and refusal to accept responsibility for the offence – Where defence case facilitated the procedural administration of justice

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 19A
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 12
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3, 21, 21A, 22A, 61, Pt 4, Div 1A

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150
Droudis v R (2020) 103 NSWLR 806; [2020] NSWCCA 322
Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Johns [2003] VSC 415
R v Morris [2017] NSWSC 637
R v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Sayle Kenneth Newson (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L…

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 Newson (No 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Newson (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 1661
Case: [2021] NSWSC 1661
Decision Date: 17 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Newson, was convicted by a jury of the murder of his domestic partner, the deceased. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant's history of child sexual assault, along with other mitigating factors, should reduce his moral culpability for the offence of murder. The court was also required to determine whether the intent to kill could be established by the extent of the injuries inflicted on the deceased and the appellant's expertise as a martial arts fighter.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the appellant's history of child sexual assault did not establish a causal connection to his issues of jealousy and anger that led to the murder. The court also found that the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation were guarded due to his long-standing drug abuse and refusal to accept responsibility for the offence. The court concluded that the mitigating factors, including the appellant's history of child sexual assault, did not significantly reduce his moral culpability for the offence of murder. The court found that the disposal of the deceased's body in bushland was an aggravating factor, and the extent of the injuries inflicted on the deceased and the appellant's expertise as a martial arts fighter established the intent to kill.

The court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect the community. The court also noted that the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation were guarded, and the non-parole period reflected this. The court considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's history of child sexual assault, and determined that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders