R v Shepherd - [2006] NSWSC 799

CITATION: R v Shepherd [2006] NSWSC 799

HEARING DATE(S): 26.04.06, 27.04.06, 28.04.06, 01.05.06, 02.05.06, 03.05.06, 04.05.06, 08.05.06, 09.05.06, 10.05.06, 10.07.06

JUDGMENT DATE :
11 August 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hoeben J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years to commence on 23 November 2003 and to expire on 22 November 2018 with a balance of term of 5 years to expire on 22 November 2023. Commencement of the sentence backdated to 23 November 2003, being the date upon which the offender first went into custody.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence for murder - murder of partner after night of drinking - application of standard non-parole period - aggravating and mitigating factors.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Channon v The Queen (1978) 33 FLR 433
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575 at [122]
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 at [43]
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hearne (2001) 124 A Crim R 451 at [34]
R v King [2004] NSWCCA 444 at [171]
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v White [2005] NSWSC 667

PARTIES: Crown
Glenn Kenneth Shepherd

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2004/2986

COUNSEL: Mr Paul Cattini - Crown
Mr Eric Wilson - Offender

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown
Solicitor for Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOEBEN J

Friday, 11 August, 2006

2004/2986 - REGINA v Glenn Kenneth SHEPHERD

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Glenn Kenneth Shepherd (hereinafter called “the offender”) stood trial in Dubbo charged with one count of murder to which upon presentation of the indictment on 26 April 2006, he pleaded not guilty.

2 On 10 May 2006 the jury found the offender guilty as charged. The offender has therefore been convicted of the murder of Gabrielle Best on 21 November 2003.

3 It is now my responsibility to sentence the offender for that crime, having heard submissions on sentence from both the Crown and Mr Wilson on 10 July 2006.

Background Facts

4 The offender was born on 26 April 1971 and the deceased, Gabrielle Best, was born on 2 April 1965. Both grew up in Cobar New South Wales. The offender had previously been married and as a result is the father of two girls born in 1994 and 1996. They live with their mother in Sydney. The deceased was the mother of two boys, Gerard (Jed) born 11 December 1990 and Samuel born 1996. In 1999 the deceased and the offender formed a relationship. At that time the deceased lived at 18 Harcourt Street, Cobar. The offender had his own place. After a short period of time the offender moved into 18 Harcourt Street with the deceased. In early 2001 the family relocated to Sydney where they lived at Kemps…

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 Shepherd

Details

AGLC: R v Shepherd [2006] NSWSC 799
Case: [2006] NSWSC 799
Decision Date: 11 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a conviction for murder, where the accused, Shepherd, was found guilty of killing his partner following a night of heavy drinking. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court, where the primary issue was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the offence. The prosecution argued for a lengthy sentence due to the heinous nature of the crime, while the defence sought a lesser sentence by highlighting various mitigating factors, including the accused's history of alcohol abuse and the emotional circumstances leading up to the incident.

The court was tasked with applying the standard non-parole period for murder, as well as considering any aggravating or mitigating factors that could influence the final sentence. The key legal issues revolved around the appropriate weight to give to the mitigating factors in light of the severe nature of the crime and the principles of sentencing for murder in Australian law. The court had to balance the need for general deterrence and denunciation with the personal circumstances of the offender.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the profound impact of the loss of life. While recognising the mitigating factors, such as the accused's alcohol dependency and the emotional context of the event, the court ultimately determined that these factors did not sufficiently outweigh the need for general deterrence and denunciation. The court applied the standard non-parole period for murder, which was set at 20 years, and imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime. The final orders included a sentence of 20 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 years.

Orders