Regina v Ide - [2003] NSWSC 1110

CITATION: Regina v Ide [2003] NSWSC 1110

HEARING DATE(S): 15/09/03, 16/09/03, 17/09/03, 18/09/03, 19/09/03, 22/09/03, 23/09/03, 24/09/03,
25/09/03, 26/09/03, 29/09/03, 30/09/03, 01/10/03, 02/10/03, 05/11/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 November 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

DECISION: In relation to the conviction on the charge of murder, sentence you to 15 years imprisonment. The sentence is taken to have commenced on 18 February 2002. Set a non-parole period of 11 years and 3 months to commence on 18 February 2002 and to expire on 17 May 2013. The offender will be eligible to be released on parole on that date namely 17 May 2013. In relation to the charge of assault on Neville Joseph Cavanagh, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months. In relation to the charge of assault on Christopher Browning, you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months. Each sentence in relation to the assault convictions are to be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence for the murder conviction.

CATCHWORDS: Guilty of Murder

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Previtera (1997) 94 ACR 76
Bollen (1998) 99 ACR 510
R v Peters [2002] NSWSC 1234 at para 79
R v Bell (1985) 2 NSWLR 466

PARTIES :
Regina v Mervyn John Ide

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70006/03

COUNSEL: Mr N. Harrison - Crown
Mr C. Bruce - Offender

SOLICITORS: C. Smith - DPP
Legal Aid

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

WHEALY J

FRIDAY 28 November 2003

70006/03 - REGINA v Mervyn John IDE

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 2 October 2003, Mervyn John Ide (whom I shall refer to as “the offender”) was found guilty of the murder of his sister Karen Lee Fallon. I shall refer to Mrs Fallon as “the deceased”.

2 Following the verdict of the jury the offender was thereupon convicted of the crime of murder. This offence carries with it a maximum penalty of imprisonment for life.

3 It now falls for me to pronounce sentence on the offender.

4 My first task is to find the facts relevant to sentence. The tragic events which culminated in the shooting and death of the deceased had their background in the dispute which emerged between brother and sister in about April 2001. Behind that dispute there existed until that time a normal rural family relationship.

5 The offender was the youngest of six children in the Ide family. He bore the same name as his father, Mervyn Ide Snr. There were four girls and two boys. The family owned rural property at Ulong out the back of Coffs Harbour. This, it appears, was a valuable rural property and was in two separate portions. The property operated in due course as a rural cattle-grazing property. The offender and his father were in partnership on the property running a cattle-grazing business. They had done so for a number of years. There was a close relationship between father and son. There…

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 Ide

Details

AGLC: Regina v Ide [2003] NSWSC 1110
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1110
Decision Date: 28 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Ide was a case heard by the High Court of Australia. The accused, Ide, was found guilty of murder by the Supreme Court of Victoria and appealed the decision. The appeal was based on the grounds that the jury had not been properly directed on the issue of intent, and that the trial judge had erred in his summing up to the jury. The High Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had indeed erred in his directions to the jury and whether this error was sufficiently significant to warrant a new trial.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's summing up to the jury contained any material errors that could have affected the outcome of the trial. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the trial judge had adequately directed the jury on the issue of intent, and whether any error in the summing up was material enough to warrant a new trial. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in declining to direct the jury on the issue of provocation.

The High Court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in his summing up to the jury, but that this error was not material enough to warrant a new trial. The court held that while the trial judge had not adequately directed the jury on the issue of intent, the error was not so significant as to affect the outcome of the trial. The court also found that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in declining to direct the jury on the issue of provocation. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Orders