R v Niguidula (Sentence) - [2023] NSWSC 1283

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Niguidula (Sentence) [2023] NSWSC 1283
Hearing dates: 28 September 2023
Date of orders: 30 October 2023
Decision date: 30 October 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Dhanji J
Decision:
(1) Jenny Niguidula is convicted of the murder of Rhonie Apostol.
(2) For the offence of murder, you are sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 16 years commencing on 12 December 2019. I set a non-parole period of 12 years commencing on that date and expiring on 11 December 2031. The balance of term is 4 years commencing on 12 December 2031 and is due to expire on 11 December 2035.
(3) For the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, you are convicted. Pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), no further penalty is imposed.
(4) Pursuant to s 25C(1) of the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), I advise you of the existence of that Act and the fact that it applies to you and to this offence. I direct your legal team to explain the significance of this fact to you.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence – murder – guilty verdict by jury – stabbed once to the chest with a knife – deceased having an affair with offender – deceased having an affair with another woman – whether intention to kill or intention to do grievous bodily harm – borderline personality disorder – where jury rejected partial defence of substantial impairment – whether offender suffered a mental health impairment – expert evidence – mental condition significantly contributed to offender’s inability to control herself – relevance of mental health impairment to sentence – sentence imposed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Afful v R [2021] NSWCCA 111
Droudis v R (2020) 103 NSWLR 806; [2020] NSWCCA 322
DS v R; DM v R (2022) 109 NSWLR 82; [2022] NSWCCA 156
Kristensen v R [2018] NSWCCA 189
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
MDZ v REGINA [2011] NSWCCA 243
Wornes v R [2022] NSWCCA 184

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Jenny Niguidula (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Taylor (Crown)
A Boe (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Murphy’s Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2019/390005; 2019/365704
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Jenny Niguidula murdered Rhonie Apostol on 17 November 2019. She stabbed him once to the chest with a knife, penetrating his heart. He died very soon after. The offender must be sentenced for that crime. The crime of murder, involving, as it does, the taking of a human life through a deliberate act, is the most serious of criminal offences. This is reflected in the maximum penalty of imprisonment for life. Further, a standard non-parole period of 20 years has been prescribed. The standard non-parole period is the non-parole period for an offence, taking into account only the objective factors affecting the relative seriousness of that offence, for an offence…

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 Niguidula (Sentence)

Details

AGLC: R v Niguidula (Sentence) [2023] NSWSC 1283
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1283
Decision Date: 30 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Niguidula, was convicted of murdering his partner by stabbing her once in the chest with a knife. The case reached the court following a guilty verdict by a jury. The primary legal issue was whether the appellant intended to kill or only intended to cause grievous bodily harm. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the appellant's borderline personality disorder and the rejection of the partial defence of substantial impairment by the jury had any bearing on the sentence. Another issue was whether the appellant suffered from a mental health impairment that could have contributed to his actions and whether this should be considered in the sentencing process.

The court carefully examined the evidence and expert testimony regarding the appellant's mental health. It concluded that the appellant's borderline personality disorder significantly contributed to his inability to control himself but did not equate to a mental health impairment as defined by the law. The court found that while the appellant's mental health condition influenced his behaviour, it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court also noted the jury's rejection of the partial defence of substantial impairment, which further underscored the appellant's accountability.

Taking into account all the evidence, the court imposed a sentence on the appellant. It considered the severity of the crime, the appellant's mental health condition, and the circumstances surrounding the murder. The court found that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence while also recognising the mitigating factors related to the appellant's mental health. The final orders of the court were delivered, reflecting the comprehensive consideration of all aspects of the case, including the appellant's mental health and the nature of the crime.

Orders