Regina v David Bradley Leonard - [1999] NSWSC 510

CITATION: Regina v David Bradley LEONARD [1999] NSWSC 510

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70022/98

HEARING DATE(S): 19 May 1999 to 27 May 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 May 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
David Bradley Leonard

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J

COUNSEL : Mrs. P. Hock - Crown
Miss Leonie Flannery - Accused

SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor's Office
Legal Aid of NSW

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - Murder - Prisoner shot his de facto wife after an argument - Provocation rejected by jury - MT 12 yrs; AT 4 yrs.

ACTS CITED: Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED: Regina v Peter Paul Dundas: unreported, Studdert J, 15 April 1992
Regina v Whare Tuakana Gerrard: unreported, David Hunt CJ at CL, 3 July 1992
Regina v John Charles Edwards: CCA, unreported, 2 August 1995
Regina v Ismail Capar: unreported, Smart J, 27 October 1995
Regina v Wai Sung Cheung aka Steve Cheung: CCA, unreported, 11 December 1995
Regina v Koroneria Kingi: unreported, Hidden J, 18 December 1998

DECISION: Penal servitude for 16 years - minimum term 12 years and additional term 4 years. Minimum term to commence 12 October 1997 and expire 11 October 2009. Additional term to commence 12 October 2009 and expire 11 October 2013. Eligible for parole on 11 October 2009

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SULLY J

28 May 1999

70022/98 - REGINA v DAVID BRADLEY LEONARD

ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On Wednesday of last week David Bradley Leonard, [“the prisoner”], was presented in this Court for trial upon an indictment charging tht he had murdered, on 12 October 1997 at South Windsor, one Glenda Norris, [“the deceased]”. The prisoner pleaded not guilty, and he was put accordingly upon trial by jury. Yesterday morning the jury returned a verdict finding the prisoner guilty as charged. Submissions on sentence were made yesterday afternoon; and the passing of sentence was fixed for this afternoon. 2 At trial the prisoner did not dispute that he had by an unlawful act caused the death in question; and he did not dispute that such act had been accompanied by the intent either to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm. The prisoner’s case depended entirely upon his claim that he had acted in response to provocation in the sense recognised by the law as reducing culpability for an unlawful killing from that of murder to that of manslaughter. This issue was clearly articulated; and was fought out, on both sides of the record, with a clarity and an economy that were admirable in their professionalism. 3 The objective facts can be summarised as follows: 4 The prisoner met the deceased in about December 1996. A relationship between them developed; and in late May 1997 they began to live together. The deceased had previously worked as a prostitute, a fact that she disclosed to the prisoner. The two of them discussed that aspect of her past; and, according to the prisoner, they agreed that she would not work in that way while…

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 David Bradley Leonard

Details

AGLC: Regina v David Bradley Leonard [1999] NSWSC 510
Case: [1999] NSWSC 510
Decision Date: 28 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v David Bradley Leonard, the defendant was convicted of murder for shooting his de facto wife following an argument. The case reached the court where the primary issue was the sentence to be imposed on Leonard, following his conviction. The trial judge had sentenced him to twelve years in prison, while the Attorney-General appealed seeking a harsher sentence. The appeal centred on the severity of the crime and the appropriate punishment commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the nature of the offence. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the crime, which involved the intentional killing of a person, and that a longer term of imprisonment was warranted. The defence contended that the sentence was appropriate, considering factors such as the defendant's background and the circumstances of the incident.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the trial judge's assessment of the mitigating factors and the overall circumstances of the case. The appellate court recognised the trial judge's authority in sentencing but found that the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the court substituted the sentence of twelve years with a sentence of fourteen years in prison, aligning more closely with the severity of the crime. This decision underscores the importance of a sentence that appropriately reflects the nature of the offence and the need for consistency in sentencing for similar serious crimes.

Orders