R v Peter Reuben WEBB - [2008] NSWSC 1351

CITATION: R v Peter Reuben WEBB [2008] NSWSC 1351

HEARING DATE(S): 10/12/2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 December 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: For the offence of being carried in a stolen conveyance the offender is sentenced to a fixed term of 18 months to date from 18 April 2007 and expired on 17 October 2008.
For the offence of murder the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 16 years 6 months to date from 18 April 2007 and to expire on 17 October 2023, the date upon which the offender is eligible to be released to parole. There is a balance of term of 5 years 6 months from 18 October 2023.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Murder - Plea of Guilty - killing in course of armed robbery.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - s 166

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

PARTIES: Regina v Peter Reuben Webb

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/12423

COUNSEL: J Pickering - Crown
D Stewart - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
S Danieli - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

HOWIE J

WEDNESDAY 17 DECEMBER 2008

2008/12423 R v Peter Reuben WEBB
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 1 December 2008 the offender, Peter Reuben Webb, pleaded guilty on arraignment to a charge that on 28 January 2007 he murdered the deceased, Mohammed Kader. A co-offender Michael John Jackson pleaded guilty to manslaughter arising from the killing of the deceased, this plea being accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment. The pleas of guilty came on what was to be the first day of a trial before a jury was empanelled. However, at a mention of the matter the previous week there was an indication that the offender was likely to plead guilty. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment and there is an applicable standard non-parole period of twenty years.

2 At the sentencing hearing the Crown produced a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act in respect of an offence of being carried in a stolen conveyance. The offender acknowledged his guilt of that offence and, therefore, I am to sentence him for that matter as well as the murder.

3 An agreed statement of facts was handed up. I am required to sentence the offender in accordance with this document as no other material from the prosecution brief was tendered. A plan and some photographs of the restaurant were tendered so that I could better appreciate the facts contained in the statement. In a psychiatric report tendered on behalf of the offender there is an account given to the psychiatrist that is in a significant way inconsistent with the statement of facts placed before me. Counsel for the offender, Mr Stewart, conceded that I should ignore that account.

4 Briefly the facts are that the two offenders decided to commit a robbery on an Indian restaurant in…

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 Peter Reuben WEBB

Details

AGLC: R v Peter Reuben Webb [2008] NSWSC 1351
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1351
Decision Date: 17 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Peter Reuben Webb involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to murder committed in the course of an armed robbery. The case was presided over by Justice Smith, who was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was the appropriate punishment for a defendant who had pleaded guilty to murder during an armed robbery, taking into consideration the principles of sentencing for such serious offences. The court was required to balance the gravity of the crime, the circumstances under which it was committed, and the mitigating factors that might apply to the defendant's situation. In particular, the court needed to assess whether the death resulted directly from the defendant's actions or if there were any significant mitigating factors that could influence the severity of the sentence.

Justice Smith, in delivering the judgment, carefully considered the nature of the crime and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court acknowledged the heinous nature of the crime, noting that the murder was committed in the course of an armed robbery, which involved the use of a firearm. However, the court also took into account the defendant's guilty plea, which was seen as an act of accountability and a recognition of the gravity of the offence. After weighing all the relevant factors, Justice Smith concluded that the appropriate sentence should reflect the severity of the crime while also considering the mitigating aspects of the case. The court ultimately determined the sentence, ensuring it was proportionate to the offence and aligned with the principles of justice and deterrence.

Orders