R v Todd Andrew PEARCE - [2008] NSWSC 1434

CITATION: R v Todd Andrew PEARCE [2008] NSWSC 1434
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 November 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 December 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Latham J

DECISION: SENTENCED to a non parole period of 15 years, to date from 19 August 2007, expiring 18 August 2022, with a balance of term of five (5) years, to date from 19 August 2022, expiring 18 August 2027

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - intention to kill - significant level of intoxication - standard non parole period not applicable.

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Todd Andrew Pearce (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/3228

COUNSEL: H Wilson (Crown)
P Winch (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh Solicitor of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Nicolas Moir & Associates Pty Ltd (Offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
EAST MAITLAND

LATHAM J

17 DECEMBER 2008

2008/3228 R v TODD ANDREW PEARCE
SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR : The offender pleaded guilty to Murder on 20 November 2008 at the end of a seven day trial. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment with a standard non parole period of 20 years imprisonment.

2 The offender's defence at trial was self defence, including a partial defence of substantial impairment. In view of his plea of guilty, the factual basis underlying the offender's claim to self defence namely, a threat from the victim that he would shoot the offender, falls away. Accordingly, I proceed to sentence on the basis of the Crown case at trial, unless otherwise indicated by these remarks.

3 The evidence at trial established that on the afternoon of 18 August 2007 the offender went to a housing commission unit complex in Hamilton South to visit Michelle Clapham. Ms Clapham was previously known to the offender and was also known to the victim, Con Karafylis. The victim had been contacted earlier in the day by Ms Clapham in the hope that he could provide her with some methylamphetamine. When the offender arrived at the unit he had possession of a large, heavy metal knife, similar in appearance to a scimitar approximately 25 to 30 cm in length, with a wide slightly curved blade. The knife had a distinctive silver metal sheath. Another friend of Ms Clapham’s, Mr Stuart Weeks, was also at the unit.

4 Whilst the offender was at Ms Clapham's unit, the victim arrived. The offender had an argument with Mr Karafylis wherein the offender accused him of robbing the offender's uncle's premises. This was denied by the victim who then left the unit and commenced to walk from the unit complex. The offender, carrying the knife, followed the victim outside the unit complex on to Fowler St where the offender and the victim continued to argue. Some witnesses in the trial described observing two men facing each other, gesticulating with their arms and pointing fingers. Raised voices…

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 Todd Andrew PEARCE

Details

AGLC: R v Todd Andrew Pearce [2008] NSWSC 1434
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1434
Decision Date: 17 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Todd Andrew Pearce, the accused faced the court on charges of murder. The dispute centred on the circumstances surrounding the death of the victim, including the level of intoxication of the accused at the time of the offence and its impact on his ability to form the necessary intent to commit murder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the accused, who was significantly intoxicated at the time of the offence, could have formed the requisite intent to kill the victim. The court also considered whether the standard non-parole period should apply to the sentence, given the circumstances of the case. The defence argued that the intoxication was so severe that it precluded the formation of the necessary intent, while the prosecution maintained that the accused's actions demonstrated the requisite intent.

The court determined that the accused was indeed intoxicated to a significant degree at the time of the offence. However, it was held that the level of intoxication, while reducing the accused's cognitive functions, did not entirely negate his ability to form the intent to kill. The court found that the accused had acted with sufficient premeditation and deliberation to establish the intent necessary for murder. Regarding the sentence, the court held that the standard non-parole period should not apply due to the unique circumstances of the case, including the level of intoxication.

As a result of the court's findings, the accused was convicted of murder. The court imposed a sentence that, while acknowledging the mitigating factor of significant intoxication, recognised the gravity of the offence. The specific sentence and non-parole period were detailed in the judgment, reflecting the court's careful consideration of all relevant factors.

Orders