R v Turnbull (No 26) - [2016] NSWSC 847

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Turnbull (No. 26) [2016] NSWSC 847
Hearing dates: 15 June 2016
Decision date: 23 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Johnson J
Decision:
1. Following the verdict of the jury on 27 May 2016, the Offender was convicted by the Court of the offence of murdering Glendon Turner.
2. The Offender is convicted of the offence of detaining Robert Strange for advantage contrary to s.86(1) Crimes Act 1900.
3. For these offences, the Offender is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 35 years, comprising a non-parole period of 24 years commencing on 29 July 2014 and expiring on 28 July 2038, with a balance of term of 11 years commencing on 29 July 2038 and expiring on 28 July 2049.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – murder – shooting of environmental officer – multiple shots and wounds – offence committed against public official whilst exercising public functions – offences committed whilst criminal proceedings against Offender before Land and Environment Court for offences under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 – history of investigation by Office of Environment and Heritage – intention to kill – offender 79 years old at the time of the offences – partial defence of substantial impairment rejected by jury – mental condition of Offender at time of offences – offender suffering from adjustment disorder but not a serious mental disorder – offences of substantial objective gravity – importance of general deterrence – relevance of age and health on sentence – need for sentences to reflect objective seriousness of offences.
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – detain for advantage – detain environmental officer for the purpose of killing another environmental officer – offence committed against public official whilst exercising public functions – history of investigation by Office of Environment and Heritage – victim detained for a protracted period whilst he undertook the shooting of his colleague – plea of guilty – importance of general deterrence – high objective seriousness – accumulation and concurrency – aggregate sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Family Member Victim Impact Statement) Act 2014
Crimes Act 1900
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Native Vegetation Act 2003
Cases Cited: Barton v R [2009] NSWCCA 164
Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage, Department of Premier and Cabinet v Turnbull [2014] NSWLEC 150
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Jeffries v R [2008] NSWCCA 144; 185 A Crim R 500
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234
Ngo v R [2013] NSWCCA 142; 233 A Crim R 121
Potts v R [2012] NSWCCA 229; 227 A Crim R 217
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1
R v Fraser [2005] NSWCCA…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Turnbull (No 26) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] NSWSC 847
Decision Date: 23 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Turnbull, the defendant was convicted of the murder of an environmental officer and the attempted murder of a second officer. The case came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the primary issue was the sentencing of the 79-year-old offender. The defendant had a history of investigations by the Office of Environment and Heritage for offences under the Native Vegetation Act 2003. He shot the first officer multiple times and detained the second officer for an extended period while he committed the murder. The jury rejected the partial defence of substantial impairment, finding that the offender's adjustment disorder did not constitute a serious mental disorder.

The court needed to determine the appropriate sentence considering the offender's age, health, and the objective seriousness of the crimes. The court held that the offences were of substantial objective gravity, given the multiple shots and wounds inflicted, and the fact that they were committed against public officials exercising their duties. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence and the need for sentences to reflect the objective seriousness of the offences. Despite the offender's age and health, these factors did not mitigate the severity of the crimes. The court also noted the concurrent nature of the offences and their accumulation, which warranted a substantial aggregate sentence.

The court concluded that the appropriate sentence must adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and serve the purpose of general deterrence. It imposed a sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years. The court found that the sentence was necessary to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system and to ensure that the community's interests in deterrence and protection were served.

Orders