Regina v Badanjak - [2001] NSWSC 1041

CITATION: REGINA v. BADANJAK [2001] NSWSC 1041

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70024 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 24/08/01; 3/09/01; 16/10/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 November 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
BADANJAK, Josip

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P.G. Ingram
Offender: M. Austin

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Offender: Legal Aid Commission

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - murder - plea of guilty - sentence - murder of wife - long history of domestic violence - plea after warranted investigation of mental condition.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Thompson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Macadam-Kelly [2001] NSWCCA 170
Elphick [2000] NSWSC 977
Cheung (CCA, unreported 11 December 1995)
Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
Previtera (1997) 94 A. Crim. R. 76

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for 16 years to date from 24 January 2000. I impose a non-parole period of 12 years to date from 24 January 2000. The earliest date on which the offender will be eligible for release on parole is 23 January 2012.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 70024 of 2001

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 16 NOVEMBER 2001

REGINA v. JOSIP BADANJAK
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: On 3 September 2001, the offender Josip Badanjak pleaded guilty to the murder of his wife Maria Badanjak. He had been charged that at Blacktown on 24 January 2000 he had murdered his wife by stabbing her to death at the premises at Blacktown the family had owned. He has been in custody since that date, 24 January 2000 and his sentence should date from that date.

2 He pleaded guilty on 3 September 2001 following investigation of matters referrable to his mental condition. Those matters are referred to in the report of Dr. Bruce Westmore of 27 September 2001 and in the report of Janet Deblin, consultant psychologist, of 26 June 2001. Dr. Westmore's report discloses that when he saw the offender for re-examination, the offender expressed his sorrow for the death of his wife, that "it's very heavy on my soul and I'm very sorry for that. I can't bring her back and it is very hard to talk about that". He had in his history given to that doctor referred to what all the evidence confirms was the tempestuous and at times violent family relationship. In particular, he had referred to his wife's anger because he would not stop drinking and because of the difficulties that presented to the family, not only in terms of the personal relations, but also to money problems. He referred to his alcoholism and to his painful back condition. He referred to his forgetfulness and the observations of him by relatives that when he was drunk he was "terribly bad".

3 Dr. Westmore referred to a cultural difficulty underlying the relationships between the offender and his wife and the offender and his children. He referred to acute stressors in the relationships, in particular, occasioned by his belief that his wife was acting…

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 Badanjak

Details

AGLC: Regina v Badanjak [2001] NSWSC 1041
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1041
Decision Date: 16 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Badanjak involved the accused who pleaded guilty to the murder of his wife. The couple had a lengthy history of domestic violence, and the incident occurred in the context of this ongoing turmoil. The matter was heard in the relevant court which was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the crime committed. The primary issue before the court was the assessment of the appropriate sentence in light of the unique circumstances of the case, including the history of domestic violence and the defendant's mental state.

The court was required to balance several factors in determining the sentence. These included the nature and circumstances of the offence, the history of domestic violence, the defendant's plea of guilty, and the outcome of the warranted investigation into the defendant's mental condition. The court had to consider how these elements interplayed to inform the appropriate punishment. The plea of guilty was noted as a mitigating factor, while the history of domestic violence and mental health issues were considered in the context of sentencing.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the mitigating factors of the plea of guilty and the investigation into the defendant's mental health. However, it also gave significant weight to the history of domestic violence, recognising its severe and pervasive nature. The court determined that while these factors were important, the gravity of the offence warranted a substantial sentence. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the crime, the defendant's history, and the mitigating factors present in the case.

Orders