Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Bell, Gavin Anthony

Regina v Bell, Gavin Anthony

Case [2013] NSWSC 1838 1 November 2013

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Regina v BELL, Gavin Anthony [2013] NSWSC 1838
Hearing dates: 27 September 2013
Decision date: 01 November 2013
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Hall J
Decision:
In respect of Count 3, cause grievous bodily harm to Robert Leuthwaite (Junior) with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months commencing on 25 August 2010 and expiring on 24 February 2018, with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months commencing on 25 February 2018 and expiring on 24 August 2020.
In respect of Count 2, aggravated assault of Robert Leuthwaite (Senior) with intent to rob, sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months commencing on 25 February 2011 and to expire on 24 November 2014, together with a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months commencing on 25 November 2014 and expiring on 24 February 2016.
In respect of Count 1, murder of Devril Leuthwaite, sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 19 years, commencing on 25 February 2013 and expiring on 24 February 2032 on which date the offender will be eligible for release on parole, together with a balance of term of 6 years and 4 months commencing on 25 February 2032 and expiring on 24 June 2038.
The total effective non-parole period in respect of Counts 1, 2 and 3 is a period of 21 years and 6 months, with a balance of term of 6 years and 4 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - plea of guilty - felony murder - constructive murder - foundational offence of aggravated assault with intent to rob committed inside victims' dwelling house - offender accidentally shot in face by co-offender before discharging firearm which killed deceased - offender with long standing personal problems including drug use and anti-social personality characteristics - no link established between offender's anti-social personality disorder and any abusive or deprived upbringing - no basis for findings of special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Non-Parole Periods) Bill, 2013
Cases Cited: Bollen v R (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
Brown v R [2006] NSWCCA 395
Foster v R [2011] NSWCCA 285
Hudd v R [2013] NSWCCA 57
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39
Pearce v R (1998) HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
R v Jacobs (2004) 151 A Crim R 452
R v JB; R v RJH (1999) NSWCCA 93
R v Koloamatungi [2011] NSWCCA 288
R v Mills, (Court of Criminal Appeal, 3 April 1995 unreported)
R v Nguyen [2007] NSWSC 389
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Raad [2011] NSWCCA 138
R v Thompson [2011] NSWSC 1130
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Gavin Anthony Bell (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
P McGrath (Crown)
M Ainsworth (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for…

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 Bell, Gavin Anthony

Details

AGLC: Regina v Bell, Gavin Anthony [2013] NSWSC 1838
Case: [2013] NSWSC 1838
Decision Date: 01 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Gavin Anthony Bell, the respondent appeared before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The nature of the dispute revolved around the sentencing of the respondent who had entered a plea of guilty to charges of murder. The murder was categorised as both felony murder and constructive murder, arising from an aggravated assault with intent to rob that took place inside the victims' dwelling house. The aggravated assault was foundational to the offence, where the respondent was accidentally shot in the face by a co-offender before he himself discharged a firearm, resulting in the death of the deceased.

The central legal issues before the court encompassed the appropriate sentencing for the respondent, considering his plea of guilty, the nature of the crime, and the respondent's personal history. The court had to weigh the severity of the crime against the respondent's long-standing personal problems, which included drug use and anti-social personality characteristics. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the respondent's anti-social personality disorder stemmed from an abusive or deprived upbringing, which could have been a basis for special circumstances in sentencing.

The court deliberated on the respondent's background and the mitigating factors presented. It was noted that there was no established link between the respondent's anti-social personality disorder and any abusive or deprived upbringing. Consequently, the court found no basis for special circumstances. In determining the sentence, the court considered the severity of the crime, the respondent's plea of guilty, and his personal history. Ultimately, the court delivered its judgment, providing a comprehensive analysis and arriving at a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence while taking into account the respondent's mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for the respondent, specifying the term of imprisonment and any additional conditions or requirements. The court also made provisions for the respondent's rehabilitation and reintegration into society, acknowledging the need for addressing his underlying issues to prevent future criminal conduct.

Orders