R v SLD

Case [2002] NSWSC 758 30 August 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v SLD [2002] NSWSC 758

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70092/01

HEARING DATE(S): 5/2/02, 22/3/02, 26/4/02, 14/6/02, 19/7/02, 2/8/02, 23/8/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
SLD

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

COUNSEL : G. Smith
P. Zahra SC

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
D J Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - murder - juvenile - plea of guilty - murder of child.

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (UK)

CASES CITED: Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6
R v Garforth NSWCCA, 23 May 1994
R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
R v Hearne (2001) NSWCCA 37
R v JB and RJH (1999) NSWCCA 93
R v JPD (2001) VSC 204
R v Kama [2000] NSWCCA 23
R v Pham and Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Preston NSWCCA, 9 April 1997
Regina v Secretary to State for the Home Department; Ex Parte Venables [1988] AC 407
R v SDM (2001) 51 NSWLR 530
R v Sharma [2002] NSWCCA 142
R v SK and OZ (2001) NSWCCA 492
R v WKR (1993) 32 NSWLR 447
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

DECISION: Sentence: Imprisonment for 20 years, to commence from 29 January 2001, and to expire on 28 January 2021. Non parole period of 10 years to date from 29 January 2001 and to expire on 28 January 2011.

- 33 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ at CL

Friday 30 August 2002

70092/01 Regina v SLD

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: SLD appears for sentence following his plea of guilty to an indictment charging him with murder. That offence occurred on 29 January 2001, and the plea was entered on 5 February 2002, following arraignment that day. He was committed for trial on 9 October 2001, and the matter was first mentioned in the Supreme Court on 5 November 2001. Since that date there have been a number of adjournments, in order to enable an exhaustive investigation into the background and mental state of SLD. It is accepted that the plea was offered at the first reasonably available opportunity, following preliminary psychiatric assessment.

FACTS

2 At the time of the offence SLD was aged 13 years and 10 months. He lived with his adoptive parents in the near vicinity of the house of his victim, who I shall refer to by her initials CM-C. She was 3 years old. She had been put to bed on the previous evening at about 8.30 pm, and checked by her mother at about 1.00 am. It was a hot night, and while the screen doors were kept closed and locked, the other doors were left open.

3 At about 7 am on the morning of 29 January, her father noticed that the screen door and side gate were open. When he went to wake CM-C he…

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 SLD

Details

AGLC: R v SLD [2002] NSWSC 758
Case: [2002] NSWSC 758
Decision Date: 30 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v SLD, the respondent was charged with the murder of a child and subsequently pleaded guilty to the crime. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of [State]. The primary dispute revolved around the appropriate sentencing for the offence, particularly given the age of the respondent at the time of the offence.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty, considering various legal principles and statutory provisions. It had to weigh the nature and circumstances of the crime, the respondent's age, and any mitigating factors. The court also needed to consider the statutory framework governing the sentencing of juvenile offenders, including the principles outlined in the Sentencing Act and any relevant case law.

The court ultimately determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect the gravity of the crime while also considering the respondent's age and potential for rehabilitation. After a thorough analysis, the court sentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment, taking into account all relevant factors. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the need to balance justice with the respondent's potential for reform. The final orders included a detailed sentence and conditions that the respondent must adhere to during and after the term of imprisonment.

Orders