Regina v DN - [2007] NSWSC 1252

CITATION: Regina v DN [2007] NSWSC 1252

HEARING DATE(S): 1 June 2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
9 November 2007

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division - Criminal Jurisdiction

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1

DECISION: For the offence of causing grievous bodily harm to SC with intent to murder her the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of eight years, commencing on 9 July 2006 and expiring on 8 July 2014, and a balance of term of four years, commencing on 9 July 2014 and expiring on 8 July 2018. For the murder of R the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of fifteen years, commencing on 9 July 2011 and expiring on 8 July 2026, and a balance of term of five years, commencing on 9 July 2026 and expiring on 8 July 2031.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Sentence - murder of offender's step-son - attempted murder of his partner - circumstances unexplained - prior good character - depressive illness and substance abuse - remorse - early pleas of guilty

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s21A

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
DN (offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2007/00001528 (formerly 2007/420)

COUNSEL: P Cattini (Crown)
A Haesler SC (offender)

SOLICITORS: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
South East Aboriginal Legal Service (offender)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

HIDDEN J

Friday 9 November 2007

2007/00001528 (formerly 2007/420) Regina v DN
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: This case is both appalling and baffling. The offender, DN, is a twenty-four year old man with no criminal history. On 9 July 2006, for no fathomable reason, he attacked his partner and her eleven year old son with a knife. She survived but the boy died.

2 He pleaded guilty in the Local Court to the murder of the boy, R, and to causing grievous bodily harm to his partner, SC with intent to murder her. He now stands for sentence, having maintained those pleas of guilty in this Court.

Facts

3 The facts are not in dispute. They are to be found in an agreed statement of facts and a lengthy statement to police by Ms C. The offences occurred at a house at Callala Bay, on the south coast of New South Wales, where the offender was living with Ms C, R and their one year old child, K. He and Ms C are K’s biological parents, but R was the child of a former relationship of Ms C.

4 The offender and Ms C had been together for about four years. He was a heavy drinker and smoked marijuana regularly. However, their relationship appears basically to have been a good one. When he had been drinking they would argue, among other things, about money. The arguments were sometimes heated but he was never violent. He appears also to have had a good relationship with young R.

5 From early in 2006, Ms C observed that his…

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 DN

Details

AGLC: Regina v DN [2007] NSWSC 1252
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1252
Decision Date: 9 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the sentencing of a man, referred to as DN, for the murder of his step-son and the attempted murder of his partner. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. DN was convicted of both charges and appealed against the severity of his sentence. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate punishment for these serious offences, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate weight to be given to DN's early pleas of guilty, his remorse, his prior good character, his depressive illness, and his substance abuse. The court also had to consider the nature and circumstances of the crimes, which involved significant violence and resulted in the death of the step-son and serious injury to the partner. The court examined the principles of sentencing for murder and attempted murder and the role of mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court recognised that DN's early pleas of guilty and expressions of remorse were significant mitigating factors. However, it also considered the severity of the crimes and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced these factors and had not erred in imposing the sentences of life imprisonment for murder and a concurrent term for attempted murder. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentences. The sentences reflect the gravity of the crimes and the importance of holding offenders accountable for their actions while also considering individual circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders