Legal Research
Cases
R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 43)

R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 43)

Link copied

Case Copied 21 June 2018 72 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 43) [2018] NSWSC 886
Hearing dates: 31 May 2018
Date of orders: 21 June 2018
Decision date: 21 June 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1)   In respect of the intimidation of Kimberley McGurk, the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 4 years and 6 months commencing on 27 February 2018 and expiring on 26 August 2022. I decline to set a non-parole period as to do so would serve no purpose.

(2)   In respect of the murder of Michael Loch McGurk, the offender is sentenced to a non-parole period of 27 years imprisonment, commencing on 27 February 2021 and expiring on 26 February 2048, with an additional term of 9 years imprisonment, commencing on 27 February 2048 and expiring on 26 February 2057.

(3)   The total sentence is one of 39 years imprisonment.
(4)   The offender will be eligible for parole on 26 February 2048 and his sentence will expire on 26 February 2057.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Intimidation – Joint criminal enterprise – Where offender directed the contract killing of a former business associate and the intimidation of his wife – History of disputes between offender and victims – Where the offender funded both the killing and the intimidation – Offences falling at the upper end of range of objective seriousness – Whether life sentence should be imposed for the offence of murder – Where a number of other persons had already been sentenced for their part in the offending – Necessity to have regard to the parity principle – Life sentence not imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2001 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Family Member Victim Impact Statement) Act 2014 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1
Carruthers v R [20`07] NSWCCA 276
GAS v R (2004) 217 CLR 198; [2004] HCA 22
Green v R; Quinn v R (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46
Inge v R (1999) 199 CLR 295; [1999] HCA 55
Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; 164 A Crim R 126
Lowe v R (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46
Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
R v Abdallah [2015] NSWSC 531
R v Bae [1999] NSWCCA 290
R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300; 41 MVR 399
R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
R v Do (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 512
R v Estephan [2014] NSWSC 450
R v Gattellari; R v Kaminic [2013] NSWSC 1097
R v Halloun [2014] NSWSC 1705
R v Hines (No 3) [2014] NSWSC 1273
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Kalajzich (1997)…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 43) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NSWSC 886
Decision Date: 21 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Edward Medich was convicted of orchestrating the murder of a former business associate, as well as the intimidation of the associate’s wife. The dispute was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the murder conviction. The key legal issues the court had to decide were whether the seriousness of the crimes warranted a life sentence for murder, and if the principle of parity should be considered in light of the sentences already given to other participants in the criminal enterprise.

The court found that the crimes committed by Medich were of high objective seriousness. Given the premeditated nature of the murder and the intimidation, coupled with the offender's role in funding both activities, the court was satisfied that the offences fell at the upper end of the range for such crimes. However, the court also had to consider the principle of parity, given that other participants had already been sentenced. The court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the relative culpability of offenders involved in joint criminal enterprises, but ultimately decided that a life sentence was not warranted in this instance. This decision was influenced by the sentences already handed down to other participants and the specific circumstances of this case.

In its judgment, the court emphasised the need for a balanced approach in sentencing, taking into account the gravity of the offences as well as the principle of parity. While the crimes were severe, the court concluded that a life sentence was not appropriate, considering the sentences of other offenders and the unique facts of the case. The court’s decision reflected a careful consideration of both the objective seriousness of the offences and the need for equitable treatment of all participants in the criminal activity.

Orders