Regina v Lo - [2003] NSWSC 582

CITATION: REGINA v LO [2003] NSWSC 582

HEARING DATE(S): 5, 6, 9 May 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 May 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to a term of 18 years' imprisonment to commence on 3 July 2001 and expire on 2 July 2019. Eligible to be released on parole on 2 January 2015.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - murder - early plea - assistance to authorities - 18 years with 13.5 years non-parole period

LEGISLATION CITED: s18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900
ss13A & 23(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1989

CASES CITED: Nguyen, unreported NSWCCA 14 April 1994
R v Crump (unreported, NSWCCA, 30 May 1993
R v Hearne [1999] NSWSC 605
R v Previtera (1997) A Crim R 76
R v Petroff (unreported, NSWSC 12 November 1991
Tran, unreported [1999] NSWCCA 109
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Wai Kit Lo

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70108/01

COUNSEL: Mr P E Barrett (Crown)
Mr J S Stratton (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Leary & Company (Offender)

N THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

FRIDAY 9 MAY 2003

70108/01

REGINA v WAI KIT LO
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 5 May 2003 the offender Wai Kit Lo pleaded guilty to the murder of Mr Nigel Stiffe on 22 May 2001 at Haymarket in Sydney. He has asked me to take into account in sentencing him on this offence, a further offence of attempted armed robbery of Mr Stiffe, committed on 14 May, about a week before the murder. The facts set out below are taken from the Statement of Facts tendered by the prosecution with the consent of the offender, who was represented by Mr Stratton of counsel.

2 The offender Wai Kit Lo had been employed by the victim Mr Stiffe, the Manager of the Market City Tavern in Haymarket for about 6 months, resigning some months before the offences. Teck Lee Lew, another employee at the Tavern, who had recommended him for employment, continued to work at the Tavern and remained in contact with the offender after he resigned. The offender told police (and the prosecution does not dispute) that about two months after he resigned he was approached by Teck Lee Lew who suggested that the offender should rob the Tavern. Although he was reluctant at first, he later agreed.

3 On the evening of 14 May 2001 the offender and another man (Sam Man Tran) were seen on closed circuit cameras installed outside the Tavern to enter the fire stairs from the outside. The offender later told the Police that he and the other man had balaclavas and the offender was armed with a metal pole taken from a dismantled shopping trolley. Sam Man Tran was armed with the offender’s brother’s knife. The two men were also seen on closed circuit cameras within the Tavern going from the fire-stairs to the cool-room/office area of the…

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 Lo

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lo [2003] NSWSC 582
Case: [2003] NSWSC 582
Decision Date: 9 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Lo, the defendant was convicted of murder. The case arose from an incident where Lo pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, providing substantial assistance to the authorities in their investigation. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Lo, taking into account the mitigating factor of his early guilty plea and assistance to the authorities. The legal issues before the court included the principles of sentencing for murder, the weight to be given to the mitigating factors of an early guilty plea and assistance, and the appropriate non-parole period to impose.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, and the culpability of the offender. The court noted that Lo's early guilty plea and assistance to the authorities were significant mitigating factors. The court found that these factors warranted a reduction in the sentence. However, the court also considered the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and provided sufficient deterrence. Ultimately, the court determined that an appropriate sentence was 18 years with a non-parole period of 13.5 years.

The court concluded that the mitigating factors of Lo's early guilty plea and assistance to the authorities warranted a sentence below the maximum penalty for murder, but not to the extent of a substantial discount. The court imposed a sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 13.5 years, reflecting the seriousness of the offence and the need to provide sufficient deterrence. The court's reasoning and outcome demonstrate the importance of considering both the mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing for murder.

Orders