Regina v Marchant and Crawt - [2003] NSWSC 958

CITATION: REGINA v. MARCHANT & CRAWT [2003] NSWSC 958

HEARING DATE(S): 16/09/03; 17/09/03; 22/09/03; 23/09/03; 30/09/03; 14/10/03; 15/10/03; 16/10/03; 23/10/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 October 2003

JURISDICTION:
Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

DECISION: Marchant - Impose a sentence of 38 years with a non-parole period of 32 years. That sentence is to commence on 19 September 2002. The earliest date on which he will be eligible for release on parole will be 18 September 2034.; Crawt - Impose a sentence of 35 years with a non-parole period of 28 years. That sentence is to commence on 10 August 2002. The earliest date on which he will be eligible to be release on parole will be 9 August 2030.

CATCHWORDS: Murder - plea of guilty - life sentence - when available - determinate sentence - significance of adverse prior record - offenders' discussion of crime ghoulish, evidencing viciousness and callousness - lack of prospects of rehabilitation - whether no non-parole period should be fixed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Listening Devices Act 1984
Crimes Act 1900
Firearms Act 1995
Weapons Prohibited Act 1998
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Harris (2003) 50 NSWLR 409
Petrinovic [1999] NSWSC 1131
Veen (No. 1) (1978-79) 143 CLR 458
Veen (No. 2) (1987-88) 164 CLR 465
Penisini [2003] NSWSC 892
Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270

PARTIES :
REGINA v. MARCHANT, Leith Ward;
REGINA v. CRAWT, John William

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70020/03; No. 70015/03

COUNSEL: Crown: B. Newport, QC.
Marchant: M. Paish
Crawt: S. Ocampo

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Marchant: Ross Hill & Associates
Crawt: Burston Cole

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

GREG JAMES, J.

THURSDAY 23 OCTOBER 2003

No. 70015 of 2003
No. 70020 of 2003

REGINA v. LEITH WARD MARCHANT
REGINA v. JOHN WILLIAM CRAWT
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Each of the offenders, John William Crawt and Leith Ward Marchant, have pleaded guilty before me to one charge that on 5 August 2002 at Lane Cove in the State of New South Wales they did murder Nathan Treganna.

2 In respect of each of those pleas of guilty, I have convicted the offenders. The offender Marchant pleaded guilty on 22 September 2003. The offender Crawt pleaded guilty on 30 September 2003. On 23 September 2003, I published my reasons for having concluded on 22 September, as I had earlier indicated, that I would not exclude certain evidence sought to be tendered in the Crown case. That judgment had been given at the conclusion of two days hearing during which two days I had received oral submissions and extensive written submissions provided to me previously with a large bulk of material also earlier provided to me.

3 That bulk of material in particular consisted of a large quantity of transcript of many conversations that had been recorded by reason of warrants issued under the Listening Devices Act 1984 between each of the offenders whilst they were detained in custody.

4 In addition by consent, I had been provided with…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Marchant and Crawt and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWSC 958
Decision Date: 23 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Marchant and Crawt involved the sentencing of two defendants who had pleaded guilty to the murder of a man. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendants were sentenced to life imprisonment, and the issue before the court was whether a non-parole period should be set. The defendants argued that their prior criminal records and the ghoulish nature of their discussions about the crime demonstrated their potential for rehabilitation. However, the prosecution argued that the nature of the crime and the lack of prospects for rehabilitation warranted a sentence with no non-parole period.

The court considered the defendants' prior criminal records, the nature of the crime, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the defendants' prior criminal records were significant and that their discussions of the crime were ghoulish, evidencing viciousness and callousness. The court also considered the lack of prospects for rehabilitation, finding that the defendants were unlikely to be reformed. The court held that the nature of the crime and the lack of prospects for rehabilitation warranted a sentence with no non-parole period.

In light of the above, the court determined that a sentence with no non-parole period was appropriate. The court found that the defendants' prior criminal records and the nature of the crime demonstrated a high risk of reoffending, and that there was no realistic prospect of rehabilitation. The court held that a sentence with no non-parole period was necessary to protect the community and to reflect the seriousness of the crime. The court sentenced the defendants to life imprisonment with no non-parole period.

The court's decision was based on the defendants' prior criminal records, the nature of the crime, and the lack of prospects for rehabilitation. The court held that a sentence with no non-parole period was appropriate given the high risk of reoffending and the need to protect the community. The court's decision was in line with the principles of sentencing for murder in Victoria, which prioritise the protection of the community and the denunciation of the crime.

Orders