Regina v Robinson - [2004] NSWSC 465

CITATION: REGINA v. ROBINSON [2004] NSWSC 465 revised - 10/06/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 23/2/04 - 27/2/04; 1/3/04 - 4/3/04; 8/3/04 - 12/3/04; 2/4/04; 28/5/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 May 2004

JURISDICTION:
Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1

DECISION: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a term of 22 years commencing 12 December 1999 and expiring on 11 December 2021. I set a non-parole period of 14 years. The earliest date on which the offender will be eligible for release on parole is 11 December 2013.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - murder - convicted on re-trial after successful appeal - both parties submit original sentencing appropriate, subject to subsequent circumstances - application of policy in Gilmore - reduction in non-parole period to reflect additional prospects of rehabilitation

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Gilmore (1979-80) 1 ACR 416
Bedford (1986) 5 NSWLR 711
Lowe (1984) 154 CLR 606
Harrison & Georgiou (unreported 19 December 2003)

PARTIES :
REGINA v.
ROBINSON, Harry

FILE NUMBER(S): SC No. 70056 of 1999

COUNSEL: Crown: T. Hoyle, SC.
Off: M. Paish

SOLICITORS: Crown: Director of Public Prosecutions
Off: Ross Hill & Associates

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

GREG JAMES, J.

FRIDAY 28 MAY 2004

No. 70056 of 1999

REGINA v. HARRY ROBINSON
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: The offender, Harry Robinson, was found guilty by the verdict of a jury on 12 March, of the offence that he had on 17 September 1998 at Junee in the State of New South Wales murdered John Thomas Kennett. That verdict was reached at a trial, which had commenced on 23 February 2004.

2 The offender had previously undergone a trial in April 2000 before Justice Barr and a jury and had similarly been convicted at that trial of this crime but had successful appealed. It is common ground between the Crown and the offender's legal representatives that all relevant circumstances, except for one to which I will return, were adverted to by Justice Barr when he sentenced the offender on Friday 16 June 2000 to a term of imprisonment of 22 years commencing on 12 December 1999 and expiring on 11 December 2021. His Honour at that time imposed a non-parole period of 15 years, providing for the offender to become eligible to be released on parole no earlier than and on 11 December 2014.

3 It is also common ground between the parties that the sentencing regime has, to some extent changed. At the time at which Justice Barr sentenced the offender, s.21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 provided as follows:-

“1. In determining the sentence to be imposed on an offender, a court must impose a sentence of a severity that is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

2. For that purpose, the court must take into account such of the following matters as are relevant and known to the court:-

(a) the nature and circumstances of the case,

(b) if the offence…

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 [2004] NSWSC 465
Case: [2004] NSWSC 465
Decision Date: 28 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Robinson, the defendant, Robinson, was convicted of murder following a re-trial. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the murder, taking into account the arguments of both the prosecution and the defence. Both parties submitted that the original sentencing was appropriate, subject to subsequent circumstances. The court had to consider the policy outlined in the case of Gilmore, which aimed to provide a reduction in the non-parole period to reflect the additional prospects of rehabilitation.

The legal issue before the court was whether the non-parole period should be reduced, as per the policy in Gilmore. The court considered whether the case of Gilmore was applicable and if the policy was relevant in this particular case. The court had to weigh the circumstances of the crime and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation against the need for public protection and deterrence.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles established in Gilmore and found that the policy was applicable to the present case. The court recognised the importance of providing an opportunity for rehabilitation, while also considering the need for public protection and deterrence. Ultimately, the court found that the non-parole period should be reduced to reflect the additional prospects of rehabilitation. The court took into account the arguments presented by both parties and the circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were that the non-parole period for the defendant's sentence was reduced, in line with the policy established in Gilmore. This decision was based on the court's consideration of the principles of sentencing, the circumstances of the crime, and the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the need for public protection and deterrence with the opportunity for rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant.

Orders