Legal Research
Cases
R v Stenberg

R v Stenberg

Case [2013] NSWSC 1858 13 December 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stenberg [2013] NSWSC 1858
Hearing dates: 29 November 2013
Decision date: 13 December 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 years, commencing on 1 July 2012 and expiring on 30 June 2031.
The balance of term of 6 years, 4 months, is to commence on 1 July 2031 and to expire on 31 October 2037.
The earliest date that the offender will be eligible for release on parole is 30 June 2031.
The sentence will expire on 31 October 2037.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - guilty plea - mutilation - nature and seriousness of offence - accounts given to psychiatrists - alcohol use - aggravating factors - mitigating factors - record, character, re-offending and rehabilitation - planning - remorse - remorse not taken into account by way of mitigation - mental illness - offender's personal circumstances - comparable cases - discount - no special circumstances - victim impact statements - sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Alvares v R; Farache v R [2011] NSWCCA 33; (2011) 209 A Crim R 297
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
Cameron v R [2002] HCA 6; (2002) 209 CLR 339
Cole v R [2010] NSWCCA 227
Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
GAS v R; SJK v R [2004] HCA 22; (2004) 217 CLR 198
Iskander v R [2103] NSWCCA 235
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munro v R [2006] NSWCCA 350
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; (2009) 195 A Crim R
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Engert (1996) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79 ; (2001) 121 A Crim R 380
HYPERLINK " \t "_top" R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hooper [2004] NSWCCA 10
HYPERLINK " \t "_top" R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
R v Kearnes (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1652
R v Lewis [2001] NSWCCA 448
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353; (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225; (2004) 41 MVR 40
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
R v Yeo [2003] NSWSC 314
Richardson v R [2013] NSWCCA 218
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
Woodgate v R (2009) 195 A Crim R 219

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 Stenberg

Details

AGLC: R v Stenberg [2013] NSWSC 1858
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1858
Decision Date: 13 December 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Stenberg, was convicted of murder and stood before the court for sentencing. The nature of the offence involved the brutal killing of the victim, which included acts of mutilation. Stenberg had entered a guilty plea, which was a factor considered by the court in determining the appropriate sentence. The court was tasked with weighing various aspects of the crime and Stenberg's background to arrive at a just and appropriate punishment.

The legal issues before the court included the gravity and nature of the offence, Stenberg's accounts to psychiatrists, his history of alcohol use, and the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors. The court also considered Stenberg's criminal record, character, potential for re-offending, and rehabilitation prospects. Additionally, the court examined the degree of planning involved in the crime, Stenberg's display of remorse, and the impact of the crime on the victim's family. The court's analysis was further informed by comparable cases and victim impact statements.

In its reasoning, the court found that while Stenberg had entered a guilty plea, this was not sufficient to warrant a significant reduction in sentence. The court placed considerable weight on the heinous nature of the offence, including the mutilation of the victim. Aggravating factors such as the premeditated nature of the crime and Stenberg's alcohol use were noted. Mitigating factors, including Stenberg's personal circumstances and mental health, were considered but did not outweigh the severity of the offence. The court determined that no special circumstances existed that would warrant a departure from the usual sentencing principles. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence and retribution.

Orders