Regina v Joiner - [2001] NSWSC 1163

CITATION: Regina v Joiner [2001] NSWSC 1163

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70063/01

HEARING DATE(S): 10/10/01, 12/10/01, 15/10/01, 16/10/01, 17/10/01, 18/10/01, 19/10/01, 22/10/01, 24/10/01, 25/10/01, 29/10/01, 30/10/01, 31/10/01, 1/11/01, 11/12/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 December 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Patrick JOINER

JUDGMENT OF: Whealy J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr P. Conlon SC - Crown
Mr P. Cattini - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: Office of the Solicitor for DDP
Mr Greg Adler - Legal Aid

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 378
R v Olbrich (1998) 45 NSWLR 538 at 543
R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
Bollen v R (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
Ashfield (Gunn-Brit) (NSWCCA unreported 17 February 1998)
Regina v Lowe (NSWCCA 14 November 1995)

DECISION: Patrick Joiner, I sentence you to 18 years imprisonment. The sentence is to commence from 26 October 2000. I set a non-parole period of 13 years and six months commencing 26 October 2000 and expiring on 25 April 2014. The prisoner will be eligible to be released on parole on that day, 25 April 2014.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

WHEALY J

FRIDAY 14 December 2001

REGINA v Patrick JOINER

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The prisoner Patrick Joiner was tried before me on an indictment that charged that, on or about 8 October 2000 at Sydney, he did murder Mary Seretis Joiner. On Thursday, 1 November 2001 the prisoner was found guilty of murder as charged. Submissions on sentence were made on 11 December 2001. The prisoner was on that day remanded in custody until today for the passing of sentence.

2 The maximum penalty for the crime of murder is life imprisonment.

3 I am required to find the facts relevant to sentencing. It is necessary that the facts I find be consistent with the jury’s verdict. The facts find relevant to sentencing must be, so far as they relate to findings of fact against the prisoner, be findings arrived at beyond reasonable doubt (R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 at 378). The onus of proof going to matters of mitigation is on the prisoner who must establish such matters on the balance of probabilities (R v Olbrich (1998) 45 NSWLR 538 at 543).

4 On or about 26 October 2000, police officers found the deceased’s body in a state of advanced decomposition in the boot of her vehicle, a VW Golf Registration No MSJ.31. The vehicle had been seen there, according to one resident, during the previous week or so.

5 Dr Lawrence, a Forensic Pathologist, made observations of the condition of the body, the injuries to it and details relating to the deceased’s clothing and other related matters. The principal injuries he observed were these: -

1. The deceased had a 10 millimetre laceration to her left upper lip.

2. There was extensive bruising around the left side of the jaw and extending onto the left upper neck…

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 Joiner

Details

AGLC: Regina v Joiner [2001] NSWSC 1163
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1163
Decision Date: 14 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Joiner involved the sentencing of Patrick Joiner, who was found guilty of murdering his wife, Mary Seretis Joiner, on 8 October 2000. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Criminal Division, by Whealy J. The central issue was determining an appropriate sentence for the crime of murder, taking into account the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the death, and Joiner's background and conduct post-offence.

The court had to assess the facts relevant to sentencing, considering the jury's verdict and the onus of proof on Joiner to establish matters of mitigation on the balance of probabilities. The evidence indicated that Joiner had a history of violence towards his wife, and on the day of the murder, he inflicted severe head injuries leading to her death. The court rejected Joiner's version of events, finding that he intended to cause serious physical harm. Post-offence, Joiner engaged in a series of lies and deceptions to cover up his involvement in his wife's death, showing no remorse or contrition.

The court considered various factors, including the victim impact statements, Joiner's background, and his psychological profile. Despite arguments for special circumstances due to his histrionic personality and potential depression post-sentence, the court found no basis to reduce the non-parole period. Given the gravity of the offence and Joiner's culpability, the court imposed a sentence of 18 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 years and six months. The sentence was backdated to the date of Joiner's arrest, 26 October 2000.

Orders