Regina v Robinson - [2007] NSWSC 460

CITATION: REGINA v ROBINSON [2007] NSWSC 460

HEARING DATE(S): 01/12/06; 02/03/07; 13/04/007; 27/04/07

JUDGMENT DATE :
11 May 2007

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Hall J at 1

DECISION: For the murder of Kelly Lorraine Hudson, I sentence you to a non-parole period of 16 years to commence on 28 June 2005 and to expire on 27 June 2021. The balance of your term of imprisonment will be five years, expiring on 27 June 2026, a total sentence of 21 years. The earliest date on which you will be eligible for release on parole will be 27 June 2021.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – Murder – Intent – Level of objective seriousness – Intoxication – Aggravating Factors: Injury, emotional harm, loss or damage caused by offence was substantial - Offence was committed while offender on conditional liberty in relation to an offence or alleged offence - Victim was vulnerable - Offence part of a planned criminal activity – Plea of guilty – Remorse – Rehabilitation – Subjective factors – Standard non-parole period – Deterrence – Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

CASES CITED: R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
R v King [2004] NSWCCA 444
R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272
R v O'Connell [2004] NSWSC 1120
R v Previtera (1999) 94 A Crim R 76
R v Reid [2005] NSWSC 230
R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 286
R v Tadrosse [2005] NSWCCA 145
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Williams [2005] NSWCCA 99

PARTIES: REGINA v
ROBINSON, Dalley Stuart

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 2006/1844

COUNSEL: Crown: T Hoyle SC
Offender: G W Turnbull

SOLICITORS: Crown: S Kavanagh
Offender: Bale Boshev Lawyers

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

HALL J

FRIDAY 11 MAY 2007

No. 2006/1844

REGINA v. DALLEY STUART ROBINSON

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Dalley Stuart Robinson, and I will refer to him throughout these remarks as “the offender”, was charged by way of indictment that on 28 June 2005 at Bexley North in the State of New South Wales, he did murder Kelly Lorraine Hudson.

2 The offender, through his legal representative, indicated to the Local Court that a plea of guilty would be entered on the next occasion. On 8 August 2006, he pleaded guilty to the charge before the magistrate. He was committed to this Court for sentence.

3 The offender was born on 5 June 1973. He was therefore 32 years of age at the date of the offence and is now 34 years of age. He and the victim had lived in a domestic relationship for approximately 11 to 12 years. They had two children, aged six years and 10 years as at the date of the offence. Ms Hudson had a son from a previous relationship who was aged 15 years at that time.

4 The level of culpability…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Robinson [2007] NSWSC 460
Case: [2007] NSWSC 460
Decision Date: 11 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Robinson involved a defendant who was convicted of murder. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the offence. The appeal focused on the factors the sentencing court should have taken into account when determining the penalty. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentencing decision and determining whether the original sentence was appropriate or if it needed to be altered.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was the level of objective seriousness of the offence. The court needed to consider various factors, including the degree of premeditation, the nature of the crime, and the level of harm caused to the victim. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the defendant's intoxication at the time of the offence should be considered as a mitigating factor. Other relevant factors, such as the defendant's plea of guilty, remorse, and rehabilitation, also needed to be evaluated.

The court's reasoning involved a thorough analysis of the evidence and the factors presented in the case. It concluded that the offence was of a high level of objective seriousness due to the premeditated nature of the crime and the substantial harm caused to the victim. The court found that the defendant's intoxication did not sufficiently mitigate the severity of the crime. While the defendant's plea of guilty, remorse, and potential for rehabilitation were considered, they did not outweigh the gravity of the offence. Consequently, the court determined that the original sentence was appropriate and did not need to be altered.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders