R v Pluis - [2015] NSWSC 320

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pluis [2015] NSWSC 320
Hearing dates: 20 February 2015
Decision date: 27 March 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 19 years and six months commencing on 1 February 2013, comprising a non-parole period of 14 years and seven months with a balance of term of four years and 11 months

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - offender beats victim to death - both offender and victim affected by alcohol - offender and victim reside in victim’s house - victim had told offender to vacate premises - intention to inflict grievous bodily harm - early plea of guilty - finding of remorse - caution concerning prospects of rehabilitation - specific and general deterrence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
R v Barbetta [2008] NSWSC 688
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Robert James Pluis (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr LJ Carr (Crown)
Mr EWH Wilson SC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Offender)

File Number(s): 2013/32009
Publication restriction: ---

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

JOHNSON J: The Offender, Robert James Pluis, has pleaded guilty to the murder of Darren Greenfield on or about 21 January 2013 at Wyalong.
The maximum penalty for murder is imprisonment for life: s.19A Crimes Act 1900. There is a standard non-parole period of 20 years for this crime.

Facts of the Offence

What follows is drawn from an Agreed Statement of Facts tendered on sentence.
Mr Greenfield was aged 44 years at the time of his death. He had lived in the West Wyalong area all his life. At the time of his death, he resided in premises which he owned at 78 George Bland Avenue, Wyalong. Wyalong is a small town about 3.5 kilometres from West Wyalong.
Mr Greenfield was a single man, separated from his former partner. He had a close relationship with his 19-year old son, Dylan.
At the time of his death, Mr Greenfield was employed as a pest control officer at Graincorp and had been so employed for over 20 years. Despite having a drinking problem, Mr Greenfield was regarded as a reliable worker and as a gentle, kind person who was willing to lend a helping hand to others in need.
The Offender was born in July 1969 and was 43 years of age at the time of the offence. He had resided in the West Wyalong area since about 2010.
The Offender met Mr Greenfield whilst working for Graincorp when he first moved to West Wyalong. The Offender was a seasonal worker, employed during the harvest period in November and December. For the 2012 harvest season, he was…

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 Pluis

Details

AGLC: R v Pluis [2015] NSWSC 320
Case: [2015] NSWSC 320
Decision Date: 27 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pluis involved the accused, Pluis, who was convicted of murder after beating his victim to death. Both the offender and the victim had consumed alcohol prior to the incident, which occurred at the victim's residence. The victim had previously instructed Pluis to leave the premises. Pluis entered the Supreme Court of Victoria to contest the severity of the sentence imposed on him. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant sentencing principles.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for murder, focusing on the need for specific and general deterrence, and the prospects of the offender's rehabilitation. The judge acknowledged Pluis's early plea of guilty and his demonstrated remorse, but also highlighted the gravity of the offence. The court noted the potential for alcohol to have affected the circumstances of the case, but ultimately determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the considerations of deterrence and rehabilitation with the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence. The reasoning centred on the trial judge's comprehensive assessment of the sentencing principles and the unique circumstances of the case. The court emphasised the importance of both specific and general deterrence in cases of violent crime, while also considering the offender's potential for rehabilitation. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the original sentence remain in place.

Orders