R v Ward - [2010] NSWSC 304

CITATION: R v Ward [2010] NSWSC 304
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 08/04/2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
22 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment made up of a non-parole period of 18 years 9 months and a balance of term of 6 years 3 months. The sentence is to commence on 7 June 2008 and the non-parole period expires on 6 March 2027. This is a sentence of imprisonment for 25 years and the offender cannot be considered for release to parole until 6 March 2027. It will then be a matter for the Parole Board to determine whether she can be released safely into the community.
After sentence was imposed, it was brought to my attention by the parties that I had failed to deal with two matters under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act, they being related matters of drive with middle range PCA and drive whilst unlicensed. These are matters that were taken into account when I assessed the objective seriousness of the offence of murder. There is no purpose in imposing any additional punishment for these offences. In respect of each the offender is convicted under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 without any punishment.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Conviction for murder after trial - killing by use of motor vehicle

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss10A, 21A(2)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - s 166

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina v Sarah May Ward

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/11037

COUNSEL: E Wilkins SC - Crown
E Wasilenia - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
A Whitton - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

HOWIE J

THURSDAY 22 APRIL 2010

2009/11037 REGINA v Sarah May WARD
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender was convicted by a jury of murder arising from an incident during which she intentionally drove a motor vehicle at the deceased, Eli Westlake. At the commencement of the trial the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter, but the Crown rejected the plea. From defence counsel’s opening to the jury, it seems that the plea was based upon an acceptance by the offender that she acted with gross criminal negligence in the control of her vehicle resulting in the deceased’s death.

2 The facts can be stated briefly. There was some dispute as to the incidents leading up to the killing, but a CCTV camera operating on premises next to where the killing took place captured the driving of the vehicle immediately before, and at the time of, the killing. Much of the evidence at the trial related to the background to these events and need not be given in any detail.

3 The deceased, his brother Joel and a number of other young persons had gathered at Joel’s home principally to…

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 Ward

Details

AGLC: R v Ward [2010] NSWSC 304
Case: [2010] NSWSC 304
Decision Date: 22 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ward, the defendant, Ward, stood convicted for the murder of a pedestrian after a trial. The incident occurred when Ward drove his vehicle into the pedestrian, resulting in the death. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where Ward sought to challenge the sentence imposed on him by the lower court. The primary focus of the appeal was the appropriateness of the sentence given the nature of the crime and the mitigating factors present in Ward's case.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed was excessive or manifestly inadequate in the circumstances, and whether there were any errors in the lower court's consideration of mitigating factors. Specifically, the court examined whether Ward's lack of a prior criminal record, his immediate remorse, and his cooperation with authorities were adequately taken into account. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the sentence sufficiently balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the principles of rehabilitation and proportionality.

In its judgment, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The Court of Appeal acknowledged the tragic nature of the incident and the loss of life but found that the lower court had appropriately balanced the various factors. The court found that while the killing was tragic, the sentence did not fail to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime or the culpability of the defendant. The Court of Appeal also noted that the lower court had considered Ward's remorse and cooperation, which were mitigating factors that could be properly weighed against the severity of the offence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders