R v Paul Wilkinson - [2019] NSWSC 235

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Paul Wilkinson [2019] NSWSC 235
Hearing dates: 1 February 2019
Decision date: 08 March 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hamill J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – manslaughter – where offender partner of principal offender – killing of ex-husband – principal seeking to extract confession of mistreatment of children – planned but chaotic joint criminal enterprise – brutal assault – victim dies of asphyxiation – body dumped by side of road – aggravating and mitigating features – parity of sentencing – offer of plea rejected – motivation unclear – something in the nature of love
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 24
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW), s 25C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(3) and 28(4)
Cases Cited: R v Do (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 512
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759
R v Raquel Hutchison [2019] NSWSC 25
R v Sumpton (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 684
Sumpton v R [2016] NSWCCA 162
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Paul Wilkinson
Representation:
Counsel:
M Cunneen SC (Regina)
M Ainsworth (Mr Wilkinson)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Regina)
McGirr Lawyers (Mr Wilkinson)

File Number(s): 2014/00308929
Publication restriction: See R v Hutchison, Wilkinson & Greentree (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 1758. Suppression order over the surname of the deceased and the children who gave evidence in the trial. Pseudonyms to be used.

Judgment

Paul Andrew Wilkinson is to be sentenced for his role in the unlawful killing of Brett Walker on 20 October 2014. He stood trial with a co-offender, Raquel Hutchison. Each offender was charged with murder and the trial was conducted by Judge alone. On 16 November 2018, both offenders were found not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. [1] While the two offenders were convicted of the same crime, the basis of their liability, their motivation, and their particular roles in the killing were very different.
1. R v Hutchison & Wilkinson [2018] NSWSC 1759 (“the verdict judgment”).
The offence is an extremely serious one and this is reflected in the maximum penalty of 25 years. [2] Ms Hutchison was sentenced on 31 January 2019 to a total sentence of 9 years with a non-parole period of 5½ years. [3]
2. Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 24.
3. R v Raquel Hutchison [2019] NSWSC 25. While the maximum penalty was not specifically referred to in the judgment, it was at the forefront of the decision to impose a sentence with a starting point of 12 years imprisonment for an offender with no relevant criminal history.

The facts of the offence

The facts and circumstances of the killing, and Mr Wilkinson's role, have been set out in the verdict judgment. It is not necessary to repeat all of…

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 Paul Wilkinson

Details

AGLC: R v Paul Wilkinson [2019] NSWSC 235
Case: [2019] NSWSC 235
Decision Date: 08 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Paul Wilkinson involved the sentencing of Paul Wilkinson, who was convicted of manslaughter in relation to the death of his ex-husband. The deceased, who was also the father of Wilkinson’s children, died as a result of asphyxiation following a brutal assault. The attack was part of a joint criminal enterprise with the principal offender, who aimed to extract a confession from the deceased regarding alleged mistreatment of their children. The incident was premeditated but carried out in a chaotic manner, culminating in the dumping of the victim’s body by the roadside. The legal issues before the court centred on determining the appropriate sentence for Wilkinson, considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors, and ensuring parity with the sentencing of the principal offender.

The court had to assess the severity of the crime, the role of Wilkinson in the joint criminal enterprise, and the extent of his culpability. It also had to weigh the mitigating factors, such as Wilkinson’s background and personal circumstances, against the gravity of the offence. The court found that while Wilkinson’s involvement was significant, his role was secondary to that of the principal offender. The motivation behind the crime, which seemed to be driven by something akin to love, complicated the assessment of his culpability. Ultimately, the court concluded that Wilkinson’s participation, although substantial, was less central to the execution of the crime.

After considering the various factors, the court determined that Wilkinson’s sentence should reflect both the severity of the crime and his role within the joint criminal enterprise. The court found that while the offence was heinous, Wilkinson’s lesser role and the complex nature of his motivation warranted a sentence that balanced punishment with the need for proportionality. The court decided on a sentence that, while severe, recognised the mitigating factors presented. The court’s decision aimed to ensure that Wilkinson’s sentence was commensurate with his culpability, taking into account the totality of the circumstances surrounding the offence.

Orders