R v Weston (No 3)

[2017] NSWSC 1385

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Weston (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 1385

Hearing dates:

13 – 17, 20 – 22, 24, 27 – 28 February 2017, 1 – 3 March 2017, 4, 18 August 2017, 1 September 2017, 3 October 2017

Date of orders:

11 October 2017

Decision date:

11 October 2017

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Before:

Rothman J

Decision:

(1) Conviction recorded;

 

(2) Sentence imposed of non-parole period of 25 years and 6 months, commencing 18 March 2016 and concluding 17 September 2041, the balance of term of imprisonment, being a further 8 years and 6 months, expiring on 17 March 2050.

 (3) First eligible for release on parole on 17 September 2041

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – shooting murder by bikie gang – initially retribution for relationship with ex-partner of bikie official – then as punishment for attempt to stand up to gang – reasonable possibility of no intention to murder – strong subjective circumstances – not worst case – sentence of determinate period imposed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 21A(2)(c), 21A(2)(i), 21A(2)(n)

Cases Cited:

Adanguidi v R (2006) 167 A Crim R 295; [2006] NSWCCA 404
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; [2000] NSWCCA 469
R v Twala (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 4 November 1994, unrep)

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
John Richard Weston (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel:
T Bailey (Crown)
B Murray (Offender)

  Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Archbold Legal (Offender)

File Number(s):

2015/00181328

Publication restriction:

NON-PUBLICATION ORDER RE identity or any matter that would identify witnesses A to G

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: After trial by jury, John Weston was found guilty of the murder of Laurence Starling on 24 July 2014. The trial was heard over a period of just over two weeks commencing 13 February 2017. The sentencing has been delayed by the offender, Mr Weston, changing his legal representation. The proceedings on sentence occurred on 3 October 2017.

The Process of Sentencing

2. To those unfamiliar with the process of sentencing, some aspects of the task may seem difficult to understand. The Court is required to assess the objective seriousness of an offence within the range of conduct with which offences of that kind are concerned. Thus, even, as here, where one is speaking of murder as the most serious offence in the criminal calendar, it is necessary to assess the conduct of the offender to determine where, in that range of seriousness, this offence fits.

3. It is only for the worst category of offences that one imposes the maximum sentence fixed by the Parliament. A sentence of life imprisonment is the maximum sentence for murder. In New South Wales, life imprisonment means no parole and no release. Whether a particular offence is in that category is not ascertained by imagining conduct that could be worse. Unfortunately, one can always imagine a worse scenario. Nevertheless, the Court must objectively assess the features of the offence and the circumstances of its commission, in order to determine whether it is in the category of a worst case or lower down the scale of seriousness within a notional range between the lowest level of culpability and the worst category of case.

4. The purpose in sentencing any offender is to resolve what are often, if not necessarily, conflicting sentencing objectives. In serious crimes such as murder, the importance of punishment and public deterrence loom large. These include the protection of society, personal and public deterrence, retribution and reform.

5. Each of these objectives must be assessed having regard to the gravity of the circumstances, viewed objectively, within the range of offending comprehended by the offence charged. These point, most obviously, to the protection of society, deterrence of the offender and deterrence of others who might be tempted to offend, and to retribution.

6. Considerations of reform or rehabilitation of the offender may also be significantly affected by the objective circumstances of the offence, but they are more directly affected by the subjective circumstances of the offender and the capacity for the offender to be rehabilitated. The capacity for, and the likelihood, if any, of, rehabilitation, in turn, impacts upon the degree to which a sentence is fixed, which ensures the protection of society and the personal deterrence of the offender.

7. The process is one that involves what has been described as “intuitive synthesis”. It takes each of the objective circumstances of the offence and each of the subjective circumstances of the offender and synthesises them to achieve the purposes of sentencing already described.

8. Every murder is serious. Every murder involves the taking of human life by a person who has a state of mind that elevates the seriousness of the offence to that which is the most serious of crimes in the criminal calendar. As already stated, the maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment, which penalty is imposed in the worst category of murder. The legislature has also set a standard non-parole period of 20 years’ imprisonment. The standard non-parole period acts as a guidepost in the determination of an appropriate sentence.

9. In order to determine the objective seriousness of this offence, amongst those perceived as the most serious in view of society’s respect for the sanctity of human life, it is necessary to deal with the circumstances of the offence and some background facts leading up to the infliction of the fatal injuries.

Facts

10. This murder was a “bikie killing”. It is necessary to set out the background as the circumstances leading to the killing of Mr Starling.

11. Mr Starling, the deceased, was 29 years of age at the time of his murder. He owned a business that specialised in customising motorcycles (and other motor vehicles). Originally, the deceased began employment for “The Chopper Shop” owned by Mr Stuart Field and others.

12. Sometime thereafter Mr Field sold his interest in The Chopper Shop and he and the deceased started their own business at an adjacent industrial unit. The business specialised in custom motor vehicle modifications and was known by a similar name, being, “The Chop Shop”.

13. Notwithstanding the similarity in name there was no animosity between the operators of The Chopper Shop and the new business. In or about 2010, the deceased purchased Mr Field’s interest in The Chop Shop and became the sole owner.

14. In late 2013 or early 2014, the deceased acquired a custom-made motorcycle from Mr Field. The motorcycle was unique and had been constructed as part of a competition for a television show called “Biker Build-Off”. The construction of the motorcycle and its modifications had been carried out by the deceased and Mr Field at The Chopper Shop, during the time that they worked there. After acquiring the motorcycle, the deceased stored it at The Chop Shop and made further modifications to it.

15. Mr Field was involved in a long-running feud with Justin Donnelly, allegedly a high-ranking member of the Terrigal Chapter of The Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Gang (“The Rebels”). Apparently, the dispute arose after Mr Field married Mr Donnelly’s ex-partner. How that gives rise to a dispute is not immediately apparent to any normal thinking person, but the evidence is that there was a dispute of that kind. Mr Donnelly warned Mr Field to stay away from Mr Donnelly’s ex-partner and Mr Donnelly’s son. Mr Field did not stay away.

16. Ultimately, Mr Donnelly, together with another member of the club, demanded Mr Field pay them $200,000 or they would shoot him.

17. In April 2014, Mr Field was arrested on unrelated serious drug matters. He remains imprisoned (or was at the time of the trial).

18. The offender, Mr Weston, together with his co-offender, Mr Rolfe, were members of The Rebels. At the relevant time, they belonged to the Penrith Chapter of The Rebels.

19. Apparently, as a result of The Rebels’ incapacity to realise the debt said to be owed by Mr Field, they attended various locations on the Central Coast and seized assets which they believed were owned by Mr Field. In or about May and June 2014, Mr Donnelly and a number of his associates approached the deceased demanding that the custom-built motorcycle, which he had acquired from Mr Field, be given to Mr Donnelly. It seems that Mr Donnelly believed that the motorcycle belonged to Mr Field and therefore could be “seized” for the “debt”. Threats were made. The deceased delivered the motorcycle to Mr Donnelly.

20. Subsequent to the seizure of the motorcycle, the deceased made contact with an associate of Mr Field, who had connections with a rival motorcycle gang in order for them to facilitate the return of the deceased’s motorcycle. Those associates made contact with Mr Donnelly, albeit indirectly. The foregoing background is in evidence. Witness C (a pseudonym) wrote the deceased a letter from gaol (Transcript, page 328-329) advising the deceased that he knew people who could assist in recovery of the motorcycle and advising of their identity, at least one of whom was described as being part of a Middle Eastern or Lebanese gang.

21. The next relevant circumstance that it is necessary to recite is that in early July 2014 the offender, Mr Weston, approached Witness G (a pseudonym) about paying someone a visit on the Central Coast about a bike which The Rebels had taken or tried to take from the deceased. The deceased, it was said, was trying to get it back. The persons to whom the deceased had gone in order to obtain the return of the bike were described as “Lebos”, and were, it is said, part of a Middle Eastern Gang.

22. The offender told Witness G that they were going to go to the Central Coast to give the deceased a “touch-up” and, if they could, collect what they could to the value of the bike. Witness G understood a “touch-up” to be a punch or something (which in its ordinary meaning, in this circumstance, includes the infliction of grievous bodily harm) (Evidence of Witness G, at Transcript, pages 111-115).

23. Witness D (a pseudonym) (Transcript, pages 376-377) was approached by Witness G in or about July 2014 and was told that they had to “go to Gosford to sit off at a club house”.

24. Part of the background, explained in evidence during the trial, is the relationship between members of The Rebels. Witness D, it seems, was a new member or nominee. Witness G was a new member (but not a nominee). The offender, Mr Weston, was, at the relevant time, a senior member of The Rebels Chapter and was Sergeant-at-Arms (being one of the three major officers of The Rebels Chapter). Witness D did not ask questions as to what was involved, as he considered he was not in a position so to do.

25. It is unnecessary to recite all of the evidence, but the evidence makes clear that Witness G and the offender, together with Witness D and Witness F (a pseudonym) (also known as “Import”) travelled on 14 July 2014 to the Central Coast. The evidence of Witness G, Witness D and the location of the mobile phones of the persons involved render that trip proved beyond reasonable doubt. Further, that independent material corroborates the evidence of Witness G.

26. A number of cars were hired, including a van. In the first trip, on 14 July 2014, The Rebels personnel watched the “club house”, which, in reality, was The Chop Shop. They sat in Comserve Close, up the road from The Chop Shop. It seemed that no one was there as the gate was closed and The Chop Shop shut and locked up. The four of them left after about one hour.

27. The next day, 15 July 2014, there was a second trip to Gosford. On this occasion Witness D, Witness F and the offender met Witness G at his premises in the white hire van. A phone call was made from the telephone of Witness G’s partner (Witness B (a pseudonym)) to determine if anyone was at the premises of The Chop Shop.

28. Later that evening, Witness D, Witness G and the offender drove to the Central Coast in the white hire van. They parked in the same place as on the previous evening. They considered there were too many people around and left after about half an hour (Evidence of Witness G, at Transcript, pages 118-120). On that occasion they took with them some items to cover their faces (balaclavas), some gloves and the offender had a Ruger 22 calibre pistol, with a rifle extension on it. The pistol was around 20cm and the extension 15cm (Transcript, pages 122-124).

29. The pistol in question was one in which bullets were loaded through a clip at the bottom of the handle, known as a magazine. The gun was kept in a balaclava or a sock underneath the offender’s seat of the van, which was the passenger seat. The offender told Witness G that he took the gun “just in case”, because of the Middle Eastern gang to which reference has already been made.

30. The Rebels were informed that the deceased would be at a show (an exhibition for motor vehicles) in Melbourne for quite some time and nothing occurred until 23 July 2014. (Evidence of Witness D, at Transcript, pages 378-379 and 397-398).

31. Evidence was adduced that the deceased travelled to the show, referred to above, in Melbourne by car on or about Wednesday, 16 July 2014 and was there for approximately three or four days (Evidence of Mr Moretti, at Transcript, pages 237-238).

32. On 23 July, there was a third trip to the Central Coast. Witness G received a call from the offender. Witness G hired a Toyota Corolla from Penrith Hertz, because he did not want to use his everyday car.

33. Later that night, Witness G travelled to the offender’s house, picked him up and they drove to the Central Coast. Witness G’s everyday car was left at the offender’s house as Witness G didn’t want to leave it at Hertz. Apparently there was no plan to “do anything” that night; they were “just going up for a look” (Evidence of Witness G, at Transcript, pages 120-121). The Ruger 22 was again in the possession of the offender (Evidence of Witness G, at Transcript, pages 122-123 (see also Evidence of Witness D, at Transcript, pages 380, 383-384, 397-398 and 399)).

34. The fourth trip to the Central Coast was the occasion on which the murder occurred. During the day of 24 July 2014, Mr Starling drove to Pedders, West Gosford to learn how to perform an inspection for RMS certification. This occurred between 1pm and 3pm (Evidence of Mr Brodie, at Transcript, page 254).

35. Later in the afternoon a silver hatchback was driven to the property of Witness A (a pseudonym) and someone else followed in another car (Evidence of Witness A, at Transcript, pages 301-302). The three men in the two cars drove away in the hatchback and those men were the offender, Witness G and a third person.

36. When the car first arrived at Witness A’s premises, the men were standing around discussing amongst themselves some issues, which could not be heard by Witness A, who was inside. That day, in the afternoon, Mr Moretti and the deceased were working on the front suspension system of a vehicle which they were hoping to install that week. Mr Moretti finished work at about 7:10pm, leaving the deceased alone at The Chop Shop.

37. The deceased had told Mr Moretti that he was planning to go to Sydney.

38. Witness G said to Witness D that he (Witness G) “… want[ed] to go up there and grab the guy and grab his stuff”. Witness D refused to go. Witness G said that he needed someone to go with him and Witness D suggested another person who was a nominee in The Rebels Chapter (“Import”). Witness G extended the hire of the vehicle, being the Toyota Corolla, for another day. The offender, Witness G and the suggested third member (“Import”) were seen leaving together.

39. The offender and Witness G were wearing black clothing and Import was wearing a green and white striped jumper (Evidence of Witness D, at Transcript, page 387). Witness G admitted that, before they left for Gosford on that occasion, Witness G had a gun, being a 25 calibre small pistol that could fit into your hand.

40. Witness G provides the evidence of what occurred at the site. He admits that he had with him a 25 calibre gun, the size of his hand, possibly 10cm or a little bit more. He had borrowed it from a friend. It was loaded with six bullets but, according to Witness G, he was not planning to use it (Transcript, pages 125-126) Witness G took the gun “just in case”. Witness G went to the Central Coast with Witness F and the offender.

41. Both the offender and Witness G had balaclavas and gloves. The offender had a gun, which Witness G had not seen, but which the offender told Witness G he had (Transcript, page 127). Import had a knife.

42. Witness G saw the offender’s gun after everything had happened. It was a 22 calibre.

43. The three of them parked the car in the same place that they had parked on previous occasions and noticed the deceased inside The Chop Shop. Witness G was talking with the offender as to what they were going to do and as they were speaking, the deceased reversed his car out of The Chop Shop.

44. According to Witness G (Transcript, pages 127-128) the plan was to give the deceased a “touch-up” and they were not to worry about the property any more. The offender had told Witness G that “it’s just got to be done”.

45. The deceased alighted his car to lock the gate to The Chop Shop. Witness G asked the offender if he wanted him to follow the deceased to which a response (either from the offender or Import) was to the effect: “Ah, fuck it!”

46. The offender and Import jumped out of the car and ran across the road. Witness G jumped out of the car at which he heard what he understood was his gun drop to the ground. When Witness G looked up, the deceased was standing at the fence of The Chop Shop with his hands up. The offender and Witness F were not far (about 6 to 8 feet away) from the deceased (Transcript, pages 128-129) at the top of the driveway. The offender pulled out a gun (the 22 calibre weapon) and shot the deceased twice in the stomach and groin area.

47. Prior to the shots being fired, the deceased, while standing against the fence, uttered the words “What the fuck?”. The two shots occurred almost simultaneously after that. The deceased dropped to his knees.

48. Witness G jumped back in the car and the offender and Import ran back to the car. Witness G saw the deceased stand up and run to the driver’s seat of his car. Witness G drove away with the headlights off; the offender was in the front passenger seat and Import was sitting behind him.

49. There is no doubt that there was a joint criminal enterprise to inflict grievous bodily harm on the deceased. The corroborating evidence of independent witnesses attests to the shooting in a manner that corroborates that the shooting occurred in the way Witness G has described it. Further the evidence of the movement of telephones and their location also attests to the visits to the Central Coast as described by a number of witnesses.

50. An issue arises on sentence as to whether, apart from the guilt of the offender by way of the joint criminal enterprise, Witness G or the offender shot the deceased.

51. Pathology reports have been tendered and ballistics experts have given evidence in the proceedings. The deceased had seven bullet wounds representing two bullet trajectories.

52. The first bullet entered the deceased’s body on the index finger of the right hand; exited through the back of the hand; re-entered the abdomen, the stomach wall and through the mesentery. The bullet ricocheted, passed through the common iliac artery and then hit the pelvis.

53. Bullet two entered on the left of the midline of the torso and travelled downward in a superficial nature just below the surface of the skin. It was the first bullet wound that was fatal. There is no evidence as to which bullet wound occurred first in time. The numbering is arbitrary.

54. A number of factors affect the trajectory including the steepness of the drive in which the deceased was standing; whether the deceased may have been bent forward and any other factor which affects the relative positioning of the shooter (at the top of the driveway) and the deceased who was down the slope at the bottom of the driveway.

10. 22 calibre bullets and bullet fragments were found in the body of the deceased. Those bullets are consistent with the gun said to be possessed by the offender.

11. A sock (Evidence of Dr Hales) contained the presence of three particles characteristic of the gunshot primer residue and at least 61 indicative particles which supports the proposition of a firearm association. The gun was said to have been fired from a sock.

12. The residue taken from the glove and the sock are consistent with the sample taken from the fired cartridge case and the hand of the deceased.

13. DNA evidence recovered from the inside of the sock was consistent with the profile of the offender.

14. Lastly, Witness A testified that the offender asked Witness A to take him for a drive to some bushland in Gosford, on 25 July 2014. The offender got out of the car and returned from the bushland carrying a black jumper/tracksuit pants. The offender unwrapped the clothing from the bushland and revealed a black gun. That gun was cut into pieces using an oxyacetylene torch at a car repair shop four or five days later.

15. Witness A testified that the offender said “we knocked him”, referring to the deceased, and the offender, in the same conversation, denied that Witness G had shot the deceased. It was the offender that had shot him, according to the offender, as testified by Witness A.

16. Other corroborative evidence about the night of the murder was that on 25 July 2014 the offender was at the premises of Witness A after the shooting and after Witness A had driven the offender to Gosford, when Witness A was sitting in the lounge room. A tinkling noise in the bathroom was heard and Witness A says that the offender had dropped something into the bathroom sink drain.

17. A search warrant revealed that the drain in the bathroom contained cartridges from a gun, consistent with the fatal bullet cartridges fired at the deceased.

18. I take into account the warning that must be had of the evidence provided by a person that is involved in the criminal activity. Witness G is such a person. I also warn myself in relation to the testing of persons who were known to be drug users. Nevertheless, the independent and objective evidence fully corroborates the evidence of Witness G that it was the offender that shot the deceased and I so find, beyond reasonable doubt.

Subjective circumstances

64. The Court has before it a Pre-Sentence Report prepared by Corrective Services NSW and a Psychological Report prepared by Ms Alison Cullen. The Psychological Report also contains a large extract from a written account of the offender’s childhood, prepared by him because of his reluctance to speak about his childhood.

65. Assuming for immediate purposes, that all that is written and reported is accurate, it paints a disturbing picture of early childhood in which the offender suffered from a family environment in which his father was an abusive alcoholic and his mother suffered severe mental difficulties.

66. Objectively, the offender’s written account discloses significant educational disadvantage. The offender’s account discloses significant literacy issues. The offender reports sexual abuse as a child.

67. The offender has a significant criminal history including break and enter; resisting officers; serious driving offences, namely, drive whilst disqualified and the like or driving in a manner dangerous; use of offensive weapon to prevent lawful detention; custody of an offensive implement in public; behave in an offensive manner near public place; participate in a criminal group and contribute to criminal activity; and affray. He has previously served time in prison. He is not entitled to the leniency otherwise to be granted to a first offender. Further, specific deterrence may be more significant.

68. The offender did not give evidence, as a consequence of which, the only evidence of that which he told the Psychologist and upon which she based her Report is the Report itself.

69. There are two sets of submissions filed on behalf of the offender in relation to the sentencing. This is because of the change in representation to which earlier reference has been made. In answer to a direct question from the Court, Mr Brian F Murray (the second counsel representing the offender) adopted and relied upon the submissions of Mr Wendler, as amicus curiae, filed at a time after Mr Wendler’s retainer had been withdrawn.

70. I accept that the offender had significant difficulties in his childhood. I am not persuaded, even on the balance of probabilities, that they amount to all that was represented by the offender to the Psychologist, but I accept that he was the subject of abuse (violent and probably sexual) and suffered abuse at the hands of his alcoholic father. He also suffered difficulties associated with the relationship with his mother in circumstances where she suffered significant mental illness.

71. The offender nevertheless has sufficient insight to understand that his criminal history is “not good”. The offender is the user of illicit drugs and suffers significant disadvantage associated with his level of literacy and his social exclusion as a child. No doubt that social exclusion suffered as a child was one of the bases upon which he joined and obtained a “sense of protection, comradery and brotherhood” from The Rebels.

72. He has significant psychological concerns that would, together with the other issues, make his incarceration more problematic than a person who was not otherwise suffering from those issues.

73. He is no longer substance dependent (at least according to the Psychologist), but he still suffers the sequelae of post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) and has some traits of obsessive compulsive disorder. He needs ongoing psychotherapy, which I take into account in determining his subjective circumstances. He also suffers oppressive symptomatology and symptoms associated or commensurate with dysthymia (depressive symptoms).

Objective circumstances

74. The facts of the criminal offence have been recited. Notwithstanding that the evidence from The Rebels’ witnesses is evidence that must be taken with some caution on account of their involvement in the criminal enterprise and their consumption of illicit drugs, that evidence is sufficiently corroborated by the objective evidence before the Court and comes from sufficiently independent witnesses that, in the view of the Court, have not had the opportunity nor are likely to have concocted the story or discussed the evidence so as to coordinate their evidence.

75. For those reasons, I believe Witness G beyond reasonable doubt.

76. The Crown seeks to portray the murder as a “contract killing” or similar thereto. I do not accept that categorisation. This is not a killing that has been paid for or commissioned. It depends more on loyalty to The Rebels or the “group” than it does to any personal profit or advantage from the offence.

77. Nevertheless, the lawlessness with which this killing is associated is a matter of significant concern, not only in relation to the fact that a human life has been taken, but because it has been taken essentially on a whim and without any regard to the societal norms that govern all of our conduct. The place for general and specific deterrence looms large.

78. Society cannot condone this kind of lawlessness nor permit conduct which metes out violence as a means of enforcing one’s own personal authority or personal grievance. That the violence is perpetrated through a gang renders the offence even more problematic.

79. I accept the submission of the Crown that the murder of the deceased is well above mid-range and is, as the Crown submits, “high”. Nevertheless, for the murder to be in the worst category so as to warrant the imposition of a life or indeterminate sentence there must be an absence of facts mitigating the seriousness of the crime: R v Twala (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 4 November 1994, unrep); R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409; [2000] NSWCCA 469; Adanguidi v R (2006) 167 A Crim R 295; [2006] NSWCCA 404.

80. There is no doubt that the murder was detestable and gravely reprehensible, if not extremely wicked. There are some aggravating features. First, the offender used a weapon (s 21A(2)(c) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999). Secondly, the offence was committed without proper regard for public safety: s 21A(2)(i) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Thirdly, the offence was planned: s 21A(2)(n) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

81. The offender has shown little or no remorse or contrition for the offence.

82. Nevertheless there are some mitigating features of the objective circumstances. The angle of the shots fired and the agreement in the evidence before the Court leaves open the possibility that the shot was fired in order to injure seriously, rather than kill, the deceased. It is possible (particularly given the angle of entry of the wounds) that the shots were fired in order to wound the deceased (either in the arms or the legs).

83. The Court is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the nature of the agreement reached before the offence was committed, that the intention of the offender was greater than an intention to commit really serious injury or grievous bodily harm. In those circumstances an indeterminate life sentence is not warranted. Those are not the only circumstances that lead me to that view.

84. Even taking account of all of the subjective features to which I have been referred, a significant full-time custodial sentence is warranted for an offence that, taking account of the objective circumstances of the offence and the subjective circumstances of the offender and the purposes of sentencing, is well above the mid-range of offences.

85. While there are circumstances that would allow for the finding of special circumstances, I do not so find. In my view, given the length of sentence that needs to be imposed, there is more than sufficient time that would be allowed on parole if the statutory ratio is applied.

86. As stated, the objective seriousness of the offence as I have determined it, together with the subjective circumstances of the offender, is not one that brings it in the worst category of offences of murder. I have concluded that it is an offence that is well above the mid-range and requires a significant sentence of full-time custody of a definite period.

87. Bearing in mind all the factors and in particular the purposes of sentencing to which I have referred, a head sentence of 34 years’ imprisonment is an appropriate sentence. The offender has been incarcerated for this offence for 563 days as at 3 October 2017, being one year and 28 weeks and 2 days. I take into account that 563 days and, deducting it from 3 October 2017, commence the sentence from 18 March 2016.

Sentence

88. John Richard Weston, please rise.

1. You are convicted that on 24 July 2014 at West Gosford in the State of New South Wales, you did murder Laurence Starling.

2. I sentence you to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 25 years and 6 months, commencing 18 March 2016 and concluding 17 September 2041, the balance of term of imprisonment, being a further 8 years and 6 months, expiring on 17 March 2050.

3. You are first eligible for release on parole on 17 September 2041.

**********

Decision last updated: 11 October 2017