R v Reid

Case [2005] NSWSC 230 1 April 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
R v REID [2005] NSWSC 230

HEARING DATE(S): 1/11/04; 3/11/04; 12/11/04

JUDGMENT DATE :

1 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Hulme J at 1

DECISION:
Imprisonment for a non-parole period of 17 years to date from 23 May 2003 and a balance of sentence of 5 years and 6 months to commence on 23 May 2020. I specify as the date upon which he will become eligible for release on parole to be 23 May 2020.

PARTIES:
Regina
Craig Anthony Reid

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 70083/03

COUNSEL:
Crown: M Hobart
Prisoner: D Dalton

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
SE O'Connor

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

- 31 -

R v Craig Anthony REID

SENTENCE

1 HULME J: On 5 July 2004 the abovenamed pleaded guilty to a charge that on or about 7 August 2002 at Lavington in the State of New South Wales he did murder Samantha Meredith. He was convicted, he applied for me to disqualify myself because I had sentenced one Sharon Ward for being an accessory after the fact to the murder and in those proceedings had made findings about her and, at least implicitly, him. I reserved my decision to consider some additional documentation and the Prisoner’s matter adjourned. On 23 July 2004 I rejected the disqualification application (and another made that day) and most of the documents relied on by the Crown were then tendered. On 25 August 2004 the Court of Criminal Appeal rejected an appeal from my refusal to disqualify myself – see R v Reid [2004] NSWCCA 301 - and on Monday 1 November the sentencing proceedings resumed. Although 3 days had been set aside in fact the proceedings occupied short periods on 1 and 3 November and some further time on 12 November. I then reserved my decision.

2 It is appropriate that I acknowledge at the outset that apart from such matters as are implicit in the Prisoner’s plea, before I can use any matters of fact adversely to the Prisoner, I must be satisfied of such matters to the criminal standard of proof. It is sufficient that I be satisfied of matters which go in mitigation on the balance of probabilities.

3 An autopsy report by Dr Sugo, supplemented by a further expert certificate of 21 July 2004, states that the cause of death was the existence of multiple incised (and, the photographs would indicate, to a substantial degree overlapping) wounds to the neck. In totality, the wound extended for a distance of approximately 220mm from near the left ear to behind the right ear. There was incomplete incision of the left sternomastoid muscle, division of all anterior strap muscles of the neck below the level of the hyoid bone and transection of the right sternomastoid muscle, three of the carotid arteries, the right internal jugular vein and of the posterior pharyngeal wall. The front of bones in the upper cervical spine show a number 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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2005] NSWSC 230
Case: [2005] NSWSC 230
Decision Date: 1 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reid involved a conviction for the premeditated murder of Samantha Meredith by Craig Anthony Reid. The Supreme Court of New South Wales heard the sentencing proceedings, which considered various factors, including Reid's intent, mental state, criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the murder. Reid had pleaded guilty, but the court found him to lack remorse and to be a significant risk for re-offending. The court determined that the murder was driven by Reid's drug abuse and violent tendencies, though it was not gratuitously cruel. The sentence imposed was 17 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years, reflecting the need for deterrence, protection of the community, and retribution. The sentence took into account the mitigating factors of Reid's troubled background and drug addiction but ultimately concluded that the gravity of the crime warranted a severe penalty.

Orders