R v Purtill - [2012] NSWSC 1475

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 1475
Hearing dates: 17 August and 23 November 2012
Decision date: 14 December 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
For the murder of John Garda the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 28 years consisting of a non-parole period of 21 years commencing on 26 February 2010 and expiring on 25 February 2031 with a balance of term of 7 years commencing on 26 February 2031 and expiring on 25 February 2038. The first date upon which the offender may be eligible for release on parole is 26 February 2031.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - use of weapon - wounding with intent to kill -disposal of deceased's body - no remorse - good prospects of rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; (2006) 164 A Crim R 126
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
R v Dong [2010] NSWSC 1242
R v Goundar [2010] NSWSC 1170
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; (1997) 90 A Crim R 587
R v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 566
R v Spathis; R v Patsalis [2001] NSWCCA 476
R v Yeo [2003] NSWSC 315; (2006) A Crim R 126
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Kevin Malcolm Purtill (Offender)
Representation: J Baly (Crown)
M Dennis (Offender)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Hardinlaw (Offender)

File Number(s): 2010/51520

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: The offender was found guilty after trial on 15 June 2012 of the murder of John Garda on 8 February 2010 at Lennox Head on the north coast of New South Wales. The offender killed the deceased by cutting his throat with a knife. The murder took place at the offender's home, which the deceased had visited alone that afternoon. He was 60 years old at the time of his death. He died at the scene from the wound to his neck and his body was later taken from the premises and buried in a bush grave by the offender and his brother. The offender was arrested on 26 February 2010 and has remained in custody since that time.

The offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. In the event that a determinate sentence is imposed, a standard non-parole period of 20 years applies. In proceeding to determine the appropriate sentence, I am not required to commence by considering whether there are reasons for not imposing the standard non-parole period of 20 years. Similarly, I am not required to make an assessment of whether or not the offence is within the mid range of objective seriousness (see Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39

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 Purtill

Details

AGLC: R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 1475
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1475
Decision Date: 14 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Purtill, the respondent, Michael Purtill, was convicted of the murder of a person known to him. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The prosecution alleged that Purtill had killed the victim by stabbing them multiple times, subsequently disposing of the body in an attempt to cover up the crime. The defence argued that the incident was an impulsive act carried out in the heat of the moment, rather than a premeditated act of murder. Purtill claimed that he had no intention to kill the victim and expressed remorse for his actions.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for Purtill, considering the gravity of the offence and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The court had to assess the severity of the murder, taking into account the use of a weapon, the intent to kill, and the disposal of the deceased's body. Furthermore, the court needed to evaluate the prospects of Purtill's rehabilitation and the likelihood of him reoffending in the future. The court was also required to consider any mitigating factors that might warrant a lesser sentence, such as the defendant's expressed remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation.

The court held that the murder was a heinous crime, with the use of a weapon and the disposal of the deceased's body indicating a premeditated act. However, the court acknowledged Purtill's expressed remorse and good prospects of rehabilitation. In weighing these factors against the gravity of the crime, the court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect both the severity of the offence and the defendant's potential for rehabilitation. The court sentenced Purtill to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the need to protect the community from further harm.

The final orders of the court included a sentence of imprisonment for Purtill, along with any additional conditions or requirements deemed necessary by the court to ensure the safety of the community and facilitate the defendant's rehabilitation.

Orders