Legal Research
Cases
R v Villaluna

R v Villaluna

Case [2017] NSWSC 1390 12 October 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Villaluna [2017] NSWSC 1390
Hearing dates: 22 September 2017
Date of orders: 12 October 2017
Decision date: 12 October 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
For the offence of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm upon Jovi Pilapil, the offender is convicted. The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years. Pursuant to s 44(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the Court sets a non-parole period of 9 years commencing on 30 March 2016, and an additional term of 3 years commencing 30 March 2025 and ending on 29 March 2028.

For the murder of Keith Collins, the offender is convicted. The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 34 years. Pursuant to ss 44(1) and (2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 the Court sets a non-parole period of 24 years commencing on 30 March 2022, and an additional term of 10 years commencing on 30 March 2046 and ending on 29 March 2056.
The overall sentence is 40 years’ imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 30 years and an additional term of 10 years. The sentence is taken to have commenced on 30 March 2016. The offender will be eligible for release on parole on 30 March 2046 and his last sentence will expire on 29 March 2056.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder – wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – offender abused and tormented ex-partner – offender followed ex-partner to shopping centre – ex-partner on dinner date – offender stabbed companion to death and wounded ex-partner – murder planned – no remorse – plea of guilty – comparable cases – accumulation and concurrency – sentence for wounding 12 years with non-parole of 9 years – sentence for murder 34 years with non-parole of 24 years
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Cahyadi v R 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Mulvihill v R [2016] NSWCCA 259
Pearce v R 194 (1998) CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v Cullen [2015] NSWSC 768
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31
R v Maglovski (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 16
R v Mulvihill [2014] NSWSC 443
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Thomson; R v Houlten 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Crown)

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 Villaluna

Details

AGLC: R v Villaluna [2017] NSWSC 1390
Case: [2017] NSWSC 1390
Decision Date: 12 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Villaluna, the defendant faced a court in Australia on charges of murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The defendant had a history of abusing and tormenting his ex-partner, leading to the fatal incident where he followed his ex-partner to a shopping centre during a dinner date. In a violent outburst, the defendant stabbed his companion to death and wounded his ex-partner. The attack was premeditated, and the defendant showed no remorse for his actions. Villaluna pleaded guilty to both charges.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentences for the defendant's crimes. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant's history of abuse towards his ex-partner, the premeditation behind the attack, and the absence of remorse. The court also needed to address the principles of accumulation and concurrency in sentencing, ensuring that the sentences reflected the severity of the crimes and served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In determining the sentences, the court examined comparable cases and the gravity of the offences. For the wounding charge, the court imposed a sentence of 12 years, with a non-parole period of 9 years. For the murder charge, the court sentenced Villaluna to 34 years, with a non-parole period of 24 years. The court emphasised the need for the sentences to reflect the heinous nature of the crimes, the premeditation, and the lack of remorse. The sentences also aimed to provide deterrence and ensure public safety.

The final orders of the court included the sentencing of Villaluna to 12 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 years for the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and 34 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 24 years for the charge of murder. The sentences were to run concurrently, with the overall term reflecting the cumulative severity of the offences.

Orders