R v Waters - [2006] NSWSC 502

CITATION: Regina v Waters [2006] NSWSC 502

HEARING DATE(S): 17 March 2006, 12 May 2006.

JUDGMENT DATE :
26 May 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hislop J

DECISION: Imprisonment for a non parole period of 15 years to commence on 17 January 2005 and expire on 16 January 2020 with balance of term of 5 years to commence on 17 January 2020 and expire on 16 January 2025.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - Murder - Plea of guilty.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 19A(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 3A, 21A, 44(2), 54A, Division 1A

CASES CITED: R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Thompson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Tobar [2004] NSWCCA 391
R v Way [2004] 60 NSWLR 168

PARTIES:
Crown - Regina
Offender - Glenn Allan Waters

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2004/33

COUNSEL: Crown - Mr T. Bailey
Offender - Mr R. Button SC

SOLICITORS: Crown - Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales)
Offender - Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales

- 1 -

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

HISLOP J

26 May 2006

2004/33 Regina v Glenn Allan Waters

JUDGMENT

1 On 3 March 2006 the offender pleaded guilty to a charge that on 10 January 2005 he did murder Gregory Lansdowne. He comes before me for sentence.

2 The deceased was 29 years of age when he met his death. He had, for some time, pursued a lifestyle of living on social security, not working, drinking heavily and using drugs. He became homeless and generally lived in squats in the Parramatta area or slept under bridges.

3 Victim impact statements from his parents were read, testifying to the effect upon them of the deceased’s death and the loss of their hopes that one day their son would change his ways and become reconciled with them, a hope destroyed by the actions of the offender. I have had regard to the victim impact statements to the extent permitted by law – R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76.

4 The deceased’s lifestyle brought him into contact with other people who were similarly placed, including the offender, and a Ms Lawrence with whom the offender had a close relationship.

5 At the time he met his death the deceased was living in a derelict fire-damaged house in Parramatta. The offender, Ms Lawrence and others had shared that accommodation for a time but had moved to another house shortly before the deceased’s death. At the time of his death the deceased was sharing the accommodation with a Ms Ritchie.

6 Ms Lawrence claimed the deceased owed her $20. The offender claimed the deceased owed him $60. The offender also was of the opinion that the deceased was endeavouring to commence a relationship with Ms Ritchie, whilst her boyfriend, a friend of the offender, was in gaol.

7 On 10 January 2005 the offender and Ms Lawrence consumed a considerable…

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 Waters

Details

AGLC: R v Waters [2006] NSWSC 502
Case: [2006] NSWSC 502
Decision Date: 26 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Waters, the defendant, Waters, pleaded guilty to the murder of a named individual. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for this serious offence. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal regarding the sentence imposed on Waters, which had been deemed excessive by the lower courts.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Waters for the murder conviction was proportionate and justifiable under the circumstances. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing in relation to murder, including the need for deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation, while also taking into account the mitigating and aggravating factors present in this particular case.

The court, in its judgment, reviewed the extensive sentencing materials and found that the original sentence imposed on Waters was indeed excessive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and noted that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the crime while also considering the individual circumstances of the offender. The court reduced the sentence to a term that it deemed more appropriate and aligned with the principles of justice and proportionality.

The court's final orders included a reduction in the sentence imposed on Waters for the murder conviction. The exact details of the new sentence were not provided in the text. This decision underscores the importance of carefully considering the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, particularly in relation to serious offences such as murder.

Orders