Regina v KR - [2010] NSWSC 188

CITATION: Regina v KR [2010] NSWSC 188

HEARING DATE(S): 19/02/2010, 05/03/2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
19 March 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: In respect of the murder, count 1, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment made up of a non-parole period of 12 years to date from 30 April 2009 with a balance of term of 6 years 9 months. The offender is eligible to be released to parole on 29 April 2021.
In respect of count 2 the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 12 months. That sentence commenced on 30 July 2008 and expired on 29 July 2009.
In respect of count 3 the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 6 months. That sentence commenced on 30 April 2009 and expired on 29 October 2009.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentences for killing in the course of robbery and associated robberies after pleas of guilty - juvenile offender - parity with co-offender

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 - ss 6, 19(3)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 21A(3)

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: R v LR [2010] NSWSC 22

PARTIES: Regina v KR

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/7539

COUNSEL: G Tabuteau - Crown
H White - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
J Krajcik - Offender

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

HOWIE J
FRIDAY 19 MARCH 2010

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, who is a juvenile, pleaded guilty to three offences that all arose from a single criminal enterprise that he committed with another juvenile, LR. I have already sentenced the co-offender for his offences: see R v LR [2010] NSWSC 22.

2 The offender was arraigned on an indictment that contained three counts. The first count alleged that on or about 14 June 2008 he murdered Daniel Owen. The second count alleged that on or about 13 June, while being in company with LR, he assaulted Virginia Gay with intent to rob her. The third count alleged that on or about 14 June 2008, while being in company with LR, he assaulted Richard Young with intent to rob him. The offender pleaded guilty to the first two counts on arraignment on 7 August 2009. He pleaded guilty to the third count on 4 September 2009.

3 In respect of the offence of murder the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Because the offender is a juvenile the standard non-parole period does not apply. In respect of the other two offences the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years.

4 The facts were contained in an agreed statement. The offender did not give evidence before me. I sentenced LR, who was not charged with the offence relating to Ms Gay, based upon the agreed facts and evidence given by LR that was not challenged by the Crown. I indicated in the sentencing remarks that I believed that LR was minimising his involvement in the killing…

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 KR

Details

AGLC: Regina v KR [2010] NSWSC 188
Case: [2010] NSWSC 188
Decision Date: 19 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus KR, the appellant, KR, was found guilty of two counts of murder and associated robbery offences. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. KR, along with an accomplice, committed a series of robberies culminating in the murder of two individuals. The legal issue before the court was the appropriateness of the sentencing approach taken by the lower courts, particularly in the context of KR's age at the time of the offence and the requirement for parity with the co-offender.

The court considered the principles of sentencing in murder cases, especially where the offender is a juvenile. It was necessary to weigh the gravity of the crimes against the age and circumstances of KR. The court examined whether the sentences imposed reflected a fair and just approach, considering both the severity of the crimes and the principles of sentencing for juvenile offenders. Additionally, the requirement for parity with the co-offender was scrutinised to ensure that the sentences were proportionate and just.

The High Court concluded that the sentences imposed were appropriate in the context of the crimes committed. The court found that the lower courts had correctly balanced the severity of the offences with the age and mitigating circumstances of KR. The requirement for parity with the co-offender was also considered appropriate, ensuring that the sentences reflected the relative roles of each offender in the commission of the crimes. Consequently, the appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The court did not alter the sentences imposed by the lower courts. The final orders confirmed the sentences previously handed down, with no changes to the terms of imprisonment for KR. The court emphasised the importance of considering both the gravity of the crimes and the individual circumstances of the offender in sentencing such cases.

Orders