CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Victim stabbed 3 times – Remorse – Minor priors – Total effective sentence 18 years – Non-parole period 15 years.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr D O’Doherty
Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused
Mr D Brustman
Tony McCaughey
HIS HONOUR:
James Ronald Romero, on 19 August 2009 a jury found you guilty of the murder of Lachlan Howie.
I heard a plea in mitigation on your behalf on 2 September 2009.
The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.
The circumstances of your offending can be summarised as follows.[1]
[1]I am bound to sentence the accused on a factual basis which is consistent with the jury’s verdict. Otherwise, in relation to matters adverse to the accused, I must be satisfied of those matters beyond reasonable doubt, but I may take into account matters in his favour which are established on the balance of probabilities: R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 395 at 369; R v Olbrich (1999) 1999 CLR 270; R v Cheung (2001) 209 CLR 1; and R v Ramage [2004] VSC 508 at [25].
Friday 6 June 2008 was your 24th birthday. You had arranged a barbeque to celebrate, and you had invited some young people to attend, including your cousin, Wayne Romero. They did not turn up.
That evening you went to a house in Chiltern rented by Wayne Romero and his friend, Ricky Lappin. You took with you a bottle of Jim Beam, Coca Cola and a bag of ice cubes.
You were disappointed about your barbeque. You said to Wayne Romero something to the effect that you wanted to get into a fight and punch the shit out of someone. Wayne Romero suggested you punch the shit out of him, and at some stage the two of you had a couple of wrestles, which he described as friendly.
During the course of the evening, about 10 to 12 other young people came to the house, bringing alcohol with them. One of them was Lachlan Howie, a 16-year-old high school student. You spent much of the evening sitting on a chair in the lounge room playing on a Nintendo Wii.
You drank Jim Beam and Coke during the night which you mixed yourself. You said in your record of interview that you were drunk. I accept that you were.
Late in the evening, Lachlan Howie and his friend, Leon Allen, were on a two-seater couch near you in the lounge room. Two other young people, Skye Clements and Hayley Finlayson, were on another couch a short distance away. Another…
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 Romero
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Romero [2009] VSC 376
Case
[2009] VSC 376
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Romero was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Romero, was convicted of murder for stabbing the victim three times, leading to the victim's death. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, which was a total effective sentence of 18 years, with a non-parole period of 15 years. Romero argued that the sentence was excessive, given his level of remorse and the fact that he had only minor prior convictions.
The legal issues before the court were the appropriateness of the sentence imposed and whether it was excessive. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for murder, the gravity of the crime, the appellant's culpability, and any mitigating factors. The court also needed to determine whether the sentence was commensurate with the seriousness of the offence and whether it was an appropriate deterrent to others who might commit similar crimes.
The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court acknowledged that Romero had shown some remorse, but this was not sufficient to warrant a significantly reduced sentence. The court also noted that the appellant had only minor prior convictions, but this did not necessarily mean that a lesser sentence was warranted. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and not excessive, given the gravity of the offence and the need to deter others from committing similar crimes. The court dismissed the appeal against sentence.