Regina v Adam Patrick Owens - [2008] NSWSC 1375

CITATION: Regina v Adam Patrick OWENS [2008] NSWSC 1375

HEARING DATE(S): 3 November & 5 December 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
19 December 2008

JURISDICTION: Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: McCallum J

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years commencing on 5 March 2007 and a balance of term of 6 years. The earliest date on which the offender will be eligible for release on parole is 4 March 2024. The full term of the sentence will expire on 4 March 2030.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - plea of guilty - offence within mid-range - consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292
R v Barbetta [2008] NSWSC 688
R v Christov (No 2) [2006] NSWSC 1179
R v Merritt [2004] NSWCCA 19
R v O’Connor [2008] NSWSC 1297
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168

PARTIES: Regina
Adam Patrick Owens

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6621/08

COUNSEL: Mr R Hoenig (Crown)
Mr R Kaufmann (Sol) (Offender)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Crimlaw (Australia) Pty Ltd

- 9 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

McCALLUM J

FRIDAY 19 DECEMBER 2008

6621/08 REGINA v ADAM PATRICK OWENS

JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: Adam Patrick Owens pleaded guilty to the murder of his mother, Doris Owens, when he was arraigned on the date fixed for trial. He asked through his solicitor to be sentenced that day and sought to put no mitigating material or submissions before the Court. Over his objection, I ordered a pre-sentence report and stood the proceedings over to 5 December 2008 for further hearing on sentence.

2 The Crown tendered a statement of agreed facts, a criminal history disclosing that the offender has no prior convictions, a pre-sentence report and extracts from medical records of the offender. The pre-sentence report indicates that the offender politely declined to provide any details of his life or the circumstances of the offence and that he did not want anything to mitigate the lengthy sentence he expects to receive.

3 A victim impact statement was provided to the Court in writing and parts of it were read to the Court. The offender gave evidence, principally to rebut matters of mitigation identified in written submissions provided by the Crown. No other material was put before the Court. The offender was represented by a solicitor at the sentence hearing who repeated, as he had previously indicated when the plea of guilty was entered, that the offender did not wish to make any submissions on sentence. The offender himself, in his sworn evidence, submitted that the Court should impose the maximum penalty, which is imprisonment for life.

4 The circumstance of the offender seeking to maximise rather than to…

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 Regina v Adam Patrick Owens

Details

AGLC: Regina v Adam Patrick Owens [2008] NSWSC 1375
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1375
Decision Date: 19 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Adam Patrick Owens came before the Court of Appeal where the appellant, Adam Patrick Owens, was convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment. The deceased, who was the appellant's partner, was found deceased with severe injuries, leading to the charge of murder. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and the court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the nature of the offence and various factors that could affect the severity of the punishment.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate sentence for the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder. The court needed to consider the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also had to decide whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and whether any adjustments were necessary.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder and the guidelines provided by previous cases. It acknowledged the gravity of the offence and the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the community's expectations regarding the punishment for such a serious crime. The court examined the aggravating factors, such as the premeditation and brutality of the crime, as well as any mitigating factors presented by the appellant's legal representatives. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offence and did not require any alteration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors and that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the deterrent effect of sentencing for serious crimes like murder.

Orders