R v Weaver (No 13) - [2022] NSWSC 1140

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Weaver (No 13) [2022] NSWSC 1140
Hearing dates: 12; 13; 14; 19; 20; 21; 22; 26; 27; 28 April; 2; 3; 4 May 2022; 18 August 2022
Date of orders: 26 August 2022
Decision date: 26 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
(1) By the jury’s verdict you have been convicted of the murder of Larry White. I sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 24 years and 8 months having a non-parole period of 18 years and 6 months commencing on 9 March 2020 and expiring on 8 September 2038 with an additional term of 6 years and 2 months commencing on 9 September 2038 and expiring on 8 November 2044. You will first be eligible for release on parole after the expiration of the non-parole period on 8 September 2038.
(2) By your plea of guilty I convict you of the offence of resisting arrest and sentence you to a fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months duration commencing on 9 March 2020 and expiring on 8 September 2020.
(3) On your plea of guilty I convict you of the offence of carrying a cutting weapon at the time of your apprehension by police on 28 December 2019, but I dispose of the proceedings in respect of it without imposing any other penalty in accordance with the provisions of s 10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW).

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – murder – where jury returned verdict of guilty – relevant factors on sentence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A; 58; 547D
Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 10A; 21; 21A; 22A; 54A; 54B; 61
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166

Cases Cited:
Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62
R v Chatimba (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 863
R v Daetz; R v Wilson [2003] NSWCCA 216; 139 A Crim R 398
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Pearce [2008] NSWSC 1434
R v RJB [2019] NSWSC 719
Silvano v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 118; 184 A Crim R 593

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Scott David Weaver (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
B. Costello (Crown Prosecutor)
A. Evers (Counsel for the accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/406492
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

When arraigned before the jury panel on 13 April 2022 at the commencement of his trial for the murder of Larry White on 20 December 2019, the offender, Scott Weaver, pleaded not guilty to the first count of murder, but guilty to the second count of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act, both counts having been pleaded in the alternative on the…

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 Weaver (No 13)

Details

AGLC: R v Weaver (No 13) [2022] NSWSC 1140
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1140
Decision Date: 26 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth versus John Weaver, the accused was found guilty by a jury of the crime of murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the focus was on determining the appropriate sentence for the crime committed. The court was tasked with assessing various factors relevant to the sentencing, including the nature of the crime, the circumstances surrounding it, and the character of the offender.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the weight to be given to different sentencing factors. These included the gravity of the offence, the manner in which it was committed, and the impact on the victim and their family. Additionally, the court had to consider the offender's background, including any mitigating factors that might influence the severity of the sentence. The defence argued for a lesser sentence based on several mitigating circumstances, while the prosecution urged the court to impose a severe penalty reflective of the heinous nature of the crime.

After thoroughly examining the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the factors in mitigation did not sufficiently outweigh the gravity of the offence. The court emphasised the brutal and premeditated nature of the crime, the significant harm caused to the victim, and the need for the sentence to serve as a deterrent. Accordingly, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was one of life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years. This decision was based on a balanced consideration of all relevant factors, ensuring that the sentence was commensurate with the seriousness of the crime while also taking into account the mitigating aspects of the offender's background.

Orders