Regina v LR - [2010] NSWSC 22

CITATION: Regina v LR [2010] NSWSC 22
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 11/12/2009

JUDGMENT DATE :
3 February 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is sentenced for murder to a term of imprisonment made up of a non-parole period of 10 years 6 months to date from 30 July 2008 and to expire on 29 January 2019 the date upon which the offender is eligible to be released to parole. There is to be a balance of term of 3 years 9 months from 30 January 2019. The offender is sentenced for the assault with intent to rob and in company to imprisonment for 6 months dated from 30 July 2008 and that expired on 29 January 2009.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentences for killing in the course of robbery and associated robbery after pleas of guilty.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 97(1)
Children (Criminal proceedings) Act 1987 - Div 4 of Part 3, ss 6, 10(1)

CATEGORY: Sentence

CASES CITED: Thorn v R [2009] NSWCCA 294
R v JRD [2007] NSWCCA 55
R v MB [2006] NSWSC 1164
R v McAuliffe (1993) 70 A Crim R 303
R v JB and RJH [1999] NSWCCA 93

PARTIES: Regina v LR

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/9622

COUNSEL: G Tabuteau - Crown
B Rigg - Offender

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - Crown
S O'Connor - Offender

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

HOWIE J

WEDNESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2010

2009/9622 REGINA v LR
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, who is a juvenile, pleaded guilty on arraignment to two charges: the first is that, on or about 14 June 2008, he murdered Daniel Owen; the second is that, on or about the same date, being in company he assaulted Richard Young with intent to rob him. The two offences are connected in that they occurred within a very short period of time, at about the same location and they both arose from the offender’s suggestion to his companion, also a juvenile, that they rob someone to obtain money.

2 The offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Because the offender is a juvenile, there is no standard non-parole period applicable. The robbery offence is contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years.

3 The offender is to be dealt with according to law for the murder offence. Written submissions on behalf of the offender, received after the matter was reserved, argued that the Court should not sentence the offender at law for the robbery offence. I accept that I do have power to deal with him under Division 4 of Part 3 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act for that offence. It was pointed out in the submissions that offenders sentenced by the Children’s Court rarely receive control orders for offences…

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 LR

Details

AGLC: Regina v LR [2010] NSWSC 22
Case: [2010] NSWSC 22
Decision Date: 3 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, LR, appealed against the severity of his sentence for the murder of a victim during the course of a robbery and for the associated robbery. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the primary judge's approach to sentencing was correct, particularly in light of the principles governing the imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple offences. The central issue was whether the primary judge appropriately balanced the principles of totality, proportionality, and the need to deter future offences. The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was excessive given the plea of guilty and the discount applied for that plea.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge's approach to sentencing was not in error. The court found that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes and took into account the principles of totality and deterrence. The court also acknowledged that the plea of guilty warranted a discount but emphasised that this did not necessarily result in a significantly reduced sentence, particularly given the heinous nature of the crimes. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld as appropriate.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the sentence was a fair reflection of the severity of the crimes committed. The court stressed that the totality principle does not always lead to a significant reduction in the overall sentence, especially where the crimes are particularly egregious. The court also noted that the sentence needed to reflect the need for deterrence and to uphold the community's sense of justice. The defendant's appeal was rejected, and the original sentence was confirmed as appropriate.

Orders