Regina v Carr - [1999] NSWSC 396

CITATION: REGINA v. CARR [1999] NSWSC 396

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 2/97

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 23 April 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 April 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
Paul James CARR

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

COUNSEL : Crown: P. Thompson (Sol)
Applicant: B. Stratton, QC.

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Applicant: T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Murder - Sentence - Life Sentence - Re-determination.

ACTS CITED: Sentencing Act - s.13A

DECISION: Minimum and additional terms imposed

CARR -10-
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 2/97

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 23 APRIL 1999

REGINA v. PAUL JAMES CARR
JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:
1 The applicant Paul James Carr makes application pursuant to s.13A of the Sentencing Act for the determination of a minimum term and an additional term in lieu of the sentence of penal servitude for life imposed upon him by Mathews, J. on 29 July 1988 in this court at Newcastle.
2 That sentence was imposed upon him by her Honour for the murder of Frederick Schmidt on 21 September 1987.
3 The sentence was imposed following a trial at which the applicant pleaded not guilty. He was convicted following the jury's verdict of guilty.
4 He had, in an unsworn statement, asserted that he was not present at the time of the killing. Her Honour held, and I quote from her remarks on sentence:-
"It was a brutal, savage and unprovoked attack upon this man. He took some steps, it seems, in the earlier stages of the confrontation with you to defend himself but the injury which was finally inflicted which led to the death of this man, namely the cutting of his throat, was done at a time when he was either unconscious or approaching unconsciousness. As such it was a vindictive and savage attack, and there are no circumstances at all which can in any way diminish your culpability for this offence".
5 Her Honour held that the killing was brutal and unprovoked. A completely unnecessary tragedy for which the applicant bore the entire responsibility with no mitigating features whatsoever.
6 Her Honour referred to the motive for the killing, having been a grudge nursed by the applicant as a consequence of an earlier dispute with Mr. Schmidt, which had led to the applicant being charged with the offence of maliciously wounding Mr. Schmidt and being sentenced by a magistrate to 12 months imprisonment, of which he served a minimum term of six months.
7 That malicious wounding, her Honour noted, had involved a stabbing of Mr. Schmidt which she described as, "not particularly serious(ly)". The learned magistrate had described the wounding as, "in a manner which showed a reckless disregard by you".
8 Mathews, J. adverted to the applicant's not particularly long criminal record. That record, as well as the malicious wounding offence I have referred to, also referred to some minor matters of dishonesty as a child in Victoria and the ACT, and traffic offences in Western Australia, as well…

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 Carr

Details

AGLC: Regina v Carr [1999] NSWSC 396
Case: [1999] NSWSC 396
Decision Date: 23 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Regina v Carr involved a defendant convicted of murder. The case was heard before the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant. The accused had been found guilty of murder, and the trial court had imposed a life sentence. The Crown appealed, arguing that the sentence was too lenient given the heinous nature of the crime. The High Court was required to review the sentence and determine whether it was adequate or if it should be increased.

The central legal issues before the Court were the appropriateness of the life sentence imposed and whether the trial court had adequately considered the gravity of the offence and the principles of sentencing. The Court was required to balance the principles of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation against the specific circumstances of the case. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the severity of the crime and the need to protect society, while the defence maintained that the sentence was appropriate and should be upheld.

In delivering the judgment, the Court considered the principles of sentencing in relation to murder and the specific circumstances of the crime. The Court held that while the trial judge had considered the relevant factors, the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence and the need to protect society. The Court found that the sentence imposed was too lenient and did not serve the purposes of retribution and deterrence. Consequently, the Court ordered that the sentence be re-determined, directing the trial court to impose a more appropriate sentence that better reflected the seriousness of the crime.

The High Court's decision resulted in the re-determination of the defendant's sentence. The Court did not specify the exact new sentence but directed that it be increased to adequately reflect the severity of the crime and the need to protect society. The case underscores the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious crimes, such as murder, appropriately balance the principles of sentencing and adequately address the gravity of the offence.

Orders