CITATION: Regina v ASLETT [2004] NSWSC 1228 revised - 16/12/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 28/9/04, 29/11/04, 7/12/04, 9/12/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 December 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

DECISION: See paragraphs 210 to 249.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - murder - aggravated sexual assault in company - robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon - specially aggravated robbery - aggravated car jacking - attempting to obtain money by deception - larceny of a motor vehicle - prior record and other offences - totality of criminality - drug use - deterrence - dangerousness to community - s 18, s 61JA(1)(c)(ii), s 86(3), s 97(2), s 154(c)(2), s 154(A), s 117, s 178BA, s 344A Crimes Act 1900 - s 3A, s 21A, s 44, s 61 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 128(2) Criminal Procedure Act 1986.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 18, s 61JA(1)(c)(ii), s 86(3), s 97(2), s 154(c)(2), s 154(A), s 117, s 178BA, s 344A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 3A, s 21A, s 44, s 61
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 128(2)

CASES CITED: Attorney General's Application Under Section 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AEM & Ors (2002) NSWCCA 58
R v Bahsa [2003] NSWCCA 36
R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
R v Cotter [2003] NSWCCA 273
R v Cuthbert (1967) 86 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 272
R v Davies [2004] NSWCCA 319
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533
R v Goodwin [2004] NSWSC 757
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Harris (2000) 50 NSWLR 409
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hutchins (1958) 75 WN (NSW) 75
R v Huynh (2003) NSWCCA 239
R v Johnson [2004] NSWCCA 76
R v Kalache [2000] NSWCCA 2
R v KM & Ors [2004] NSWCCA 65
R v McNamara [2004] NSWCCA 42
R v O'Grady NSWCCA 13 May 1997
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Ranse NSWCCA 8 August 1994
R v Shankley [2003] NSWCCA 253
R v Sharma [2002] NSWCCA 142
R v Simpson (2001) 126 A Crim R 525
R v Sinanovic [2000] NSWCCA 394
R v SLD [2003] NSWCCA 310
R v Thomson and Houlten (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Thwaites NSWCCA 6 October 1993
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109
R v Valentini (1980) 2 A Crim R 170
R v Vranic NSWCCA 7 May 1991
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES :
Regina
Dudley Mark Aslett

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2004/18

COUNSEL: W Dawe QC (Crown)
J Stratton SC

SOLICITORS:

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 Aslett

Details

AGLC: Regina v Aslett [2004] NSWSC 1228
Case: [2004] NSWSC 1228
Decision Date: 15 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Aslett was a case heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales where the defendant, Aslett, was convicted of a series of serious criminal offences. Aslett was found guilty of murder, aggravated sexual assault in company, robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, specially aggravated robbery, aggravated car jacking, and attempting to obtain money by deception, among others. The crimes were committed against multiple victims and involved significant violence and deception. The case required the court to address a number of legal issues, including the appropriate sentence for the defendant given the gravity of the offences, the need for deterrence and protection of the community, and the relevance of the defendant's prior criminal record and drug use to the sentencing process.

The court was required to consider the totality of Aslett's criminality, including the severity and nature of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the defendant's background. The court also had to balance the need for deterrence against the possibility of rehabilitation. Given the particularly violent and dangerous nature of the crimes, the court needed to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and protected the community from further harm. The court referred to various sections of the Crimes Act 1900 and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 to guide its decision, including sections relating to the sentencing of multiple offences, the need for deterrence, and the consideration of prior convictions.

The court concluded that the crimes committed by Aslett were of the highest degree of seriousness and warranted a severe sentence. It considered the extensive list of offences and the significant harm caused to the victims. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and protection of the community, noting Aslett's history of criminal behaviour and drug use. After weighing all the factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was one of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years. This sentence was designed to reflect the gravity of the crimes, ensure public safety, and provide an opportunity for Aslett to reflect on his actions.

Orders