R v Websdale - [2000] NSWSC 636

CITATION: R v Websdale [2000] NSWSC 636

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC L19/97

HEARING DATE(S): 2 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 6 July 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Geoffrey Ian Websdale

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

COUNSEL : D. Frearson (Crown)
H. Dhanji (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Applicant)

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

CASES CITED: Veen v The Queen (No 1) (1979) 143 CLR 458
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
R v White [2000] NSWSC 555

DECISION: See para 31

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
STUDDERT J
Thursday 6 July 2000

L19/97 APPLICATION OF GEOFFREY IAN WEBSDALE
JUDGMENT
1   HIS HONOUR: Geoffrey Ian Websdale made application dated 6 November 1997, expressed to be pursuant to s 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989, for an order determining minimum terms and additional terms for the life sentences I imposed upon him following his conviction for the murders of Karen Joyce Deacon and Ian Hutchinson.
2   When the application was heard by me on 2 June 2000, it was common ground that the application is governed by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999. Clause 21(1) under Schedule 2 Part 2 Division 4 provides:

“Any application under s 13A of the 1999 Act that had been made, but not determined, before the appointed date is to be determined in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act.”

3   The “appointed date” is defined as the day upon which Part 4 of the Act commenced, and that date was 3 April 2000. Plainly then, since this application is now to be determined, the 1999 statute applies.
4 Clause 3(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act requires the Court, in considering this application, to have regard to all the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences for which the sentences were imposed.
5   The applicant was born on 28 August 1969 so that he was only twenty years of age when he committed these crimes. The deceased were two of four victims of the applicant’s shooting spree, but the other two victims were fortunate enough to survive, although one of them was tragically rendered quadriplegic.
6   The crimes were committed on a property near Carrathool on 7 November 1989 and I refer to my remarks on sentence of 2 November 1990 where I recorded the objective facts:

“…the prisoner was working as an apprentice shearer in a shearing team then working at Oolambeyan Station some twenty-one kilometres south west of Carrathool. Also working on the property at the time were three of the victims of the events that occurred on that night: Karen Joyce Deacon, Deborah Lorraine Astill, and Daryl Alexander Lamb. The fourth victim was an acquaintance of Deborah Astill who had accompanied her back to her quarters at Oolambeyan after meeting her at the Carrathool hotel.

The deceased, Karen Deacon, and her roommate, Deborah Astill, shared a room…

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 Websdale

Details

AGLC: R v Websdale [2000] NSWSC 636
Case: [2000] NSWSC 636
Decision Date: 6 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geoffrey Ian Websdale made an application for an order determining minimum terms and additional terms for the life sentences imposed on him for the murders of Karen Joyce Deacon and Ian Hutchinson. The application was governed by the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The Court had to consider the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences, the applicant's background, and his conduct in prison. The Court had to balance the gravity of the crimes, the applicant's remorse, and the need for community protection. The Court decided that the applicant should serve a specified term of twenty-five years for each murder, with a non-parole period of eighteen years and nine months. The sentences were to be served concurrently and to date from 8 November 1989, and the applicant would become eligible for parole on 7 August 2008.

The applicant, Geoffrey Ian Websdale, had committed two murders and two attempted murders in a shooting spree in 1989. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for each murder and additional terms for the attempted murders. He applied for an order determining the minimum terms and additional terms for his life sentences. The Court had to consider the objective and subjective features of the case in determining the appropriate sentence. The Court found that the applicant's crimes were extremely grave, but he had shown remorse, had a good prognosis for rehabilitation, and had been well-behaved in prison. The Court decided that the applicant should serve a specified term of twenty-five years for each murder, with a non-parole period of eighteen years and nine months. The sentences were to be served concurrently and to date from 8 November 1989, and the applicant would become eligible for parole on 7 August 2008.

Orders