R v PJS - [2009] NSWSC 153

CITATION: R v PJS [2009] NSWSC 153
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 13 February 2009, 20 February 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 March 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Mathews AJ

DECISION: Imprisonment to be served by way of non-parole period of 20 years, commencing on 11 November 2005 and expiring on 10 November 2025, with an additional term of six years commencing on 11 November 2005 and expiring on 10 November 2031.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence after trial - murder - victim the offender's three year-old stepdaughter - no remorse - offender continues to assert innocence - protective custody

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
PJS (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/5489

COUNSEL: B Hughes (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
PJS in person

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

Mathews AJ

Friday 13 March 2009

2006/5489 R v PJS
REASONS FOR SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR: On 20 October 2008 PJS was arraigned on a charge that on 29 October 2005 he murdered CB. He pleaded not guilty and a jury trial ensued. On 4 November 2008 the jury found him guilty of murder.

2 The factual background is as follows. In 2004 the offender entered into a relationship with JK. She had two daughters, D and CB. In August of that year the four of them moved into a rented house in Gorokan, on the central coast. In June 2005 the offender and JK were married. They were still living in the Gorokan house at the time of the offence. D was nine years old and the victim, CB, was three.

3 29 October 2005 was a Sunday. After breakfast JK prepared lunch for her two daughters. She and the offender then went out, leaving the two girls alone at home. The offender was hoping to start a concreting business at that time. He and JK had been planning to do some work towards the new business, but instead went to a hotel in the Toukley area. According to JK, the offender drank a considerable amount of beer. She was not drinking as she was pregnant. An argument developed between them and the offender left in the car, taking with him JK’s mobile phone. She was not prepared to return home, so she arranged to stay at a local refuge for the night.

4 It appears that the offender went straight home from the hotel, and that he remained there for the rest of the afternoon and evening, except for one trip back to the hotel a little before 5.00 pm, when he bought three bottles of VB long-necks. A neighbour gave evidence that on two occasions that evening, at about 6.00 to 6.30, and again at about 8.00 to 8.30, D came to her home and asked for beer and cigarettes for her father. On each…

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 PJS

Details

AGLC: R v PJS [2009] NSWSC 153
Case: [2009] NSWSC 153
Decision Date: 13 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v PJS, the appellant was convicted for the murder of his three-year-old stepdaughter. The appellant continued to assert his innocence throughout the trial, and displayed no remorse for the tragic death of the child. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the appellant following his conviction.

The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the nature of the offence, the appellant's lack of remorse, and his continued assertion of innocence. The court had to balance these factors with the principle of proportionality in sentencing, which requires that the punishment should fit the crime. The court also considered the appellant's need for protective custody, due to the serious nature of the offence and the potential for violence from other inmates.

The court held that the appellant's lack of remorse and continued assertion of innocence were aggravating factors that warranted a higher sentence. However, the court also took into account the appellant's need for protective custody, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court ultimately sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of twenty-five years. The court considered that this sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence, while also taking into account the appellant's need for protection and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders