Regina v Knight - [2001] NSWSC 1011

CITATION: Regina v Knight [2001] NSWSC 1011 revised - 29/01/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70094/00

HEARING DATE(S): 16/10/01; 17/10/01; 18/10/01; 19/10/01; 23/10/01; 25/10/01; 26/10/01; 29/10/01; 30/10/01; 31/10/01; 1/11/01; 5/11/01; 6/11/01; 8/11/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 November 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Katherine Mary Knight

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J

COUNSEL : Mark Macadam QC - Crown
Peter Thraves - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: DPP Newcastle - Crown
Cragg Braye and Thornton, Singleton - Prisoner

CATCHWORDS: Murder - Premeditated - Planning of killing - Defiling of body of deceased - Worst case category - Absence of contrition or remorse - Borderline personality disorder - Sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s19A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 21,22,61

CASES CITED: Regina v Storey (1997) 89 A Crim R 519
Regina v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
Regina v Purdey (1993) A Crim R 441
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987-88) 164 CLR 465
Regina v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 115 A Crim R 104
Regina v Kane (1974) VR 759
Regina v Short [2000] NSWCCA 462 (unreported 3 November 2000)
Regina v Privitera (1997) A Crim R 76
Bollen v Regina (1998) 99 A Crim R 510

DECISION: Imprisonment for life.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
AT NEWCASTLE

No:70094/00

CORAM : O’KEEFE J

DATE: 8 November, 2001

REGINA v KATHERINE MARY KNIGHT

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR :
INTRODUCTION

1 Katherine Mary Knight (the prisoner) was arraigned on 2 February, 2001 on a charge of having murdered John Charles Thomas Price (Mr Price) at Aberdeen in the State of New South Wales on or about 29 February 2000. She pleaded not guilty. The trial was initially fixed for 23 July, 2001 but was adjourned due to the illness of her counsel. She maintained her plea of not guilty and the trial was re-fixed for 15 October, 2001.

2 There was some minor delay in the actual commencement of the trial because of the need to augment the jury panel. This arose because of, inter alia, the nature of the case and the possible adverse effects on the members of the jury of the graphic and disturbing evidence to be called in the trial. Members of the augmented jury panel were warned of the problem and given an opportunity to be excused if they felt that the nature of the material to which they would be exposed would be likely to cause them physical or other harm in the course of the trial or serious on-going upset. Counsel for the prisoner and the Crown then sought a short adjournment to enable discussions to take place between them concerning the possibility that the prisoner may plead guilty to the charge of murder. I indicated that in view of the nature of the injuries inflicted by the prisoner on the deceased and the voluminous psychiatric evidence proposed to be called, there would need to be an up-to-date medical assessment of the prisoner which demonstrated that she was fit to plead before I would…

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 Knight

Details

AGLC: Regina v Knight [2001] NSWSC 1011
Case: [2001] NSWSC 1011
Decision Date: 8 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Knight, the accused, Knight, was found guilty of murder by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute involved the premeditated killing of a young woman, including acts of defilement post-mortem. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Knight's heinous crime, which involved significant premeditation and a lack of remorse. The defence raised the mitigating factor of the accused's borderline personality disorder, arguing it should influence the sentence. However, the prosecution highlighted the severity of the crime and the absence of any contrition or remorse on the part of the accused.

The court considered several factors in its sentencing, including the nature and circumstances of the crime, the degree of premeditation, and the absence of remorse. The judge examined the impact of the crime on the victim and her family, as well as the need for deterrence and retribution. The defence's argument regarding the accused's mental health was weighed against the gravity of the offence and the necessity to protect society. Ultimately, the court concluded that the case was one of the most severe, warranting a significant custodial sentence.

The court found that while the accused's mental health condition was a mitigating factor, it did not sufficiently outweigh the severity and premeditation of the crime. The judge determined that Knight's actions demonstrated a high degree of callousness and a lack of empathy for the victim. The court emphasised the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime and to provide a strong deterrent against similar offences. After considering all factors, the court sentenced Knight to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 25 years.

Orders