R v Park, Tai Jin - [2017] NSWSC 873

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Park, Tai Jin [2017] NSWSC 873
Hearing dates: 2 June 2017; 23 June 2017
Decision date: 30 June 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Latham J
Decision:
The offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 27 years to date from 26 August 2015, expiring 25 August 2042, with a balance of term of nine (9) years expiring 25 August 2051. The offender is eligible for parole on 26 August 2042.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder for financial gain – plea of guilty - where premeditation – where prospects for rehabilitation moderate – where sustained assault – 36 years imprisonment – 27 non-parole
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) s 166
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) 1999 (NSW) s 28
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Tai Jin Park (defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Tabuteau (Crown)
S Corish (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
AXL Legal (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/250420

sentence

On 1 February 2017, Tai Jin Park, the offender, pleaded guilty to the murder of Suyoung An between 18 August and 22 August 2015. The maximum penalty is one of life imprisonment. The offence carries a standard non-parole period of 20 years. The maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period operate as two legislative guideposts to be taken into account in the sentencing exercise.
The plea came five days before the matter was listed for trial. The Crown was first notified of a plea of guilty on 23 January 2017. In those circumstances and having regard to the requirement to recognise the utilitarian value of the plea, the offender is entitled to a discount of 10% on the sentence that otherwise applies.
The plea of guilty was entered on the basis of agreed facts which became Exhibit A in the proceedings.

The Circumstances of the Offence

On 12 July 2015 the victim rented a granny flat at 12 Windermere Road in Epping. The granny flat consisted of three bedrooms around a central lounge/kitchen and bathroom. The largest bedroom at one end of the property was occupied by the victim. On the opposite end of the building were two other bedrooms. On 23 July 2013 one of those two rooms was rented to Mr Kwon Park (no relative of the offender) and in the first week of August 2015, the other room was rented to the offender.
The victim owned and drove a grey Honda Civic sedan which he parked out the front of the premises.
On 10 August 2015 at approximately 7.00pm the offender was engaged in a conversation on a Korean message service with an acquaintance, Mr Kang, in South Korea. The offender said “I’m just going to bring a couple of $10,000, after I have sold a website and a car.” The offender did not have nor had ever been the owner of a car in New South Wales and had negligible money in his accounts.
On 12 August 2015 at…

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 Park, Tai Jin

Details

AGLC: R v Park, Tai Jin [2017] NSWSC 873
Case: [2017] NSWSC 873
Decision Date: 30 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Park, Tai Jin involved the defendant pleading guilty to murder with a plea of guilty. The offence was committed for financial gain, with significant premeditation and a sustained assault on the victim. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation and the gravity of the crime. The sentencing judge had determined a term of 36 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 27 years. The defendant appealed the severity of the sentence, arguing that it was excessive given his moderate prospects for rehabilitation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the defendant's plea of guilty, the degree of premeditation, and the nature of the assault. The court had to balance these factors against the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation and the need for general deterrence. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the principles of sentencing for murder and the application of these principles in light of the specific circumstances of the case.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It recognised the significant premeditation and the violent nature of the assault, which were critical factors in determining the severity of the sentence. The court also acknowledged the defendant's plea of guilty, which typically warrants a reduction in sentence. However, the moderate prospects for rehabilitation did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the crime to warrant a lesser sentence. The appellate court found that the original sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to uphold the principles of general deterrence and denunciation. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders