R v Saalfeld - [2007] NSWSC 376

CITATION: R v Saalfeld [2007] NSWSC 376
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 14/03/2007, 13/04/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
20 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is convicted. She is sentenced to a non-parole period of 16 years 6 months with a balance of term of 5 years 6 months. The sentence is to commence from 19 June 2005 and the non-parole period expires on 18 December 2021 the date upon which the offender is eligible to be released to parole. The balance of term commences on 19 December 2021 and expires on 18 June 2027.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Conviction of murder after trial - standard non-parole period provisions applicable - whether standard non-parole period appropriate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 44

PARTIES: Regina v Lisa Jane Saalfeld

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/653

COUNSEL: S. De Silva - Crown
B. Hancock - Offender

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 20 APRIL 2007

2006/653 REGINA v LISA JANE SAALFELD
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 13 March 2007 the offender, Lisa Jane Saalfeld, was convicted by a jury of a charge of murdering the deceased, Tina Maree Gestro, at Hamilton on 19 June 2005. She is now to be sentenced for that offence for which the maximum penalty prescribed is life imprisonment. There is an applicable standard non-parole period of 20 years.

2 The single issue before the jury was whether the offender intended to stab the deceased when they met in a confrontation on the streets of Hamilton. There were a number of witnesses who gave evidence at the trial describing the incident that occurred between the offender and the deceased. However the offender gave a version in the witness box that was to a very significant degree inconsistent with that evidence. Her account was to the effect that she had accidentally struck the deceased with a knife that she was carrying when trying to defend herself from the deceased’s attack upon her. It is clear from the jury’s verdict that they rejected this version.

3 The truth was that the offender intentionally stabbed the deceased with the knife after confronting her in an angry and aggressive mood. The only issue for me to determine in relation to the facts is whether the fatal stab wound to the deceased was inflicted with an intention to kill or with an intention to do grievous bodily harm. I will return to this issue later in the course of these remarks.

4 The facts upon which I am to sentence the offender are in a very short compass. The summary I am about to give is in accordance with the Crown case. This is chiefly because I totally reject the evidence given by the offender at the trial.…

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 Saalfeld

Details

AGLC: R v Saalfeld [2007] NSWSC 376
Case: [2007] NSWSC 376
Decision Date: 20 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Saalfeld, the appellant, a resident of Australia, was convicted of murder following a trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The nature of the dispute centred around the severity of the sentence imposed upon the appellant for the offence of murder, specifically whether the standard non-parole period provisions were appropriately applied in this instance. The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of the sentence handed down by the lower court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the standard non-parole period provisions, as outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, were suitable for the appellant's case. The appellant argued that the standard non-parole period was inappropriate due to the unique circumstances surrounding the offence, which involved a complex interplay of factors such as the appellant's background, the nature of the crime, and the impact on the victim and their family. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the standard non-parole period was an appropriate reflection of the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect society.

In delivering its judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law pertaining to the standard non-parole period. The court found that the standard non-parole period was indeed applicable in this case, as the offence of murder carried a significant degree of seriousness and the need to protect the community was paramount. The court further noted that while the appellant's personal circumstances were unfortunate, they did not warrant a deviation from the standard non-parole period. The court concluded that the lower court had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant.

The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal were to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant's conviction for murder and the associated sentence, including the standard non-parole period, were confirmed as appropriate and in accordance with the law. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency in sentencing for similar offences and the need to balance the interests of the victim, the appellant, and society as a whole.

Orders