R v White - [2012] NSWSC 1573

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v White [2012] NSWSC 1573
Hearing dates: 14 December 2012
Decision date: 14 December 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Sentenced to imprisonment for 32 years with a non-parole period of 24 years

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - convicted after trial - killing occurred during drug robbery - premeditation not established - intention to kill - disposal of body of deceased
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Humphries [2012] NSWSC 419
R v Serone [2012] NSWSC 1232
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Rodney Boyd WHITE
Representation: Counsel:
Mr J McLennan (Crown)
Mr P Bodor QC (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Gregory J Goold Solicitors

File Number(s): 2009/203701

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Rodney Boyd White was found guilty by a jury on 30 April 2012 at the end of a seven week trial at Lismore. The essence of the prosecution case against him was that he had robbed and killed a drug dealer.

Mr White was tried jointly with Jessica Birkensleigh, who was found guilty of being an accessory before the fact to robbery, and Todd Serone, who was found guilty of being an accessory after the fact to murder. Another man, Ricky Humphries, had earlier pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

Facts

Whilst the evidence in the trial was quite complex, the facts may be succinctly stated as follows.

The deceased, Saaid ("Sid") Zaiter, was a person who White described in his evidence as "a big [drug] dealer on the Gold Coast". On Tuesday 16 December 2008 Mr White lured Mr Zaiter to Mr White's cabin in a caravan park at Chinderah on the pretext of doing a deal with some buyers from Melbourne. Within that cabin Mr White assaulted him to the point of rendering him unconscious (at least). He then bound him with cable ties and taped over his mouth and nose (this was a disputed issue but I am satisfied of it beyond reasonable doubt) so that if Mr Zaiter was not dead already, he soon would be.

Mr White had duped a man named Orams into driving him to the caravan park and waiting for him in the car outside. He had also enlisted Mr Humphries to come along for support. When White returned to the car he was asked by Mr Orams how it went and he replied, "Not very good, I've just bashed the cunt and I think he's dead". Mr Orams asked, "What have you done with him?" to which White replied that he had tied him up and put tape around his mouth in case he woke up. He was not being completely truthful.

In the ensuing hours White oversaw the transporting of Mr Zaiter's car to a clearing just off the Murwillumbah-Kyogle Road at Barkers Vale where packages of drugs were retrieved from it before it was torched. He also arranged for Serone and others to collect…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [2012] NSWSC 1573
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1573
Decision Date: 14 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus White, the accused was tried and convicted of murder. The killing occurred during the course of a drug robbery, and the dispute centred around whether the premeditation required for a charge of murder was established, despite the intention to kill being present. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were the elements of murder, specifically whether the accused had the requisite premeditation for a murder conviction, and the nature of the intention to kill during the course of the drug robbery.

The court examined the evidence to determine whether there was sufficient premeditation, as required for a murder conviction, or if the killing was an impulsive act that occurred during the commission of another crime. The court also had to assess the evidence to establish the nature of the accused's intention at the time of the killing. The accused argued that the killing was not premeditated but occurred in the heat of the moment during the drug robbery. The court scrutinised the circumstances surrounding the disposal of the victim's body, which was considered in determining the accused's state of mind and whether it demonstrated premeditation. Ultimately, the court found that while the accused intended to kill, there was no evidence of premeditation. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused of murder but convicted him of manslaughter. The court ordered the accused to be sentenced for manslaughter, with specific consideration given to the circumstances of the crime and the accused's state of mind at the time of the killing.

Orders