Legal Research
Cases
R v Walsh

R v Walsh

Case [2009] NSWSC 764 7 August 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v John WALSH [2009] NSWSC 764

HEARING DATE(S): 10 July 2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
7 August 2009

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: McCallum J

DECISION: For the murder of JH the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. For the murder of KH the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life. For the offence of causing grievous bodily harm to SW with intent to murder SW, the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years commencing on 30 June 2008 and expiring on 29 June 2020 and a balance of term of 4 years. For the murder of JW, the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years commencing on 30 June 2011 and expiring on 29 June 2026 and a balance of term of 5 years.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW- particular offences – murder – attempted murder - offender pleaded guilty to three counts murder and one count attempted murder – sentence – domestic killing – husband murdered wife – grandfather murdered his two young grandchildren – father attempted to murder daughter – whether worst case category – whether life sentence warranted – offences remain unexplained – whether objective criminality tempered by absence of certain features – comparison with other cases unhelpful – offender’s extreme culpability not mitigated by any subjective circumstances of the offender – life sentences imposed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: Gonzales v R [2007] NSWCCA 321; (2007) 178 A Crim R 232
Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Alexander [1999] NSWSC 413; (1999) 107 A Crim R 449
R v De Gruchy [2000] NSWCCA 51; (2000) 110 A Crim R 271
R v Helmsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Jang [1999] NSWSC 1153
R v Kalajzich (1997) 94 A Crim R 41
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19; (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
R v Mitchell and Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296; (2007) 177 A Crim R 94
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Thawer [2009] NSWCCA 158
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Velevski (Supreme Court of New South Wales, 26 September 1997, unreported)
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168

PARTIES: REGINA (Crown)
John WALSH (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/4014

COUNSEL: P Barnett SC (Crown)
P Boulten SC (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) (Crown)
S O'Connor (Legal Aid Commission) (Offender)

- 15 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

McCALLUM J

FRIDAY 7 AUGUST 2009

2009/4014 R v John WALSH

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HER HONOUR: On 10 July 2009 John Walsh pleaded guilty to the murders of his wife and his two grandchildren and to causing grievous bodily harm to his daughter with intent to murder her.

2 There is a non-publication order…

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 Walsh

Details

AGLC: R v Walsh [2009] NSWSC 764
Case: [2009] NSWSC 764
Decision Date: 7 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walsh involved an individual who had pleaded guilty to three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. The victims were the offender's wife, his two young grandchildren, and his daughter. The case was heard in the court of criminal jurisdiction, where the primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence for the offender's crimes. The nature of the dispute centred on the severity of the crimes and the appropriate sentence that should be imposed.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for the offender's crimes, considering the gravity of the offences, the circumstances surrounding them, and the offender's culpability. The court was required to consider whether the offences were in the worst-case category and whether a life sentence was warranted. The court also had to consider whether the objective criminality of the offences was tempered by any subjective circumstances of the offender, and whether a comparison with other cases was helpful in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court found that the offences were in the worst-case category, and that a life sentence was warranted. The court found that the offences remained unexplained and that the offender's extreme culpability was not mitigated by any subjective circumstances of the offender. The court also found that a comparison with other cases was unhelpful in determining the appropriate sentence. The court ultimately imposed life sentences on the offender for the three counts of murder and a significant sentence for the attempted murder charge.

Orders