Regina v Robinson - [2000] NSWSC 972

CITATION: REGINA v ROBINSON [2000] NSWSC 972 revised - 8/11/2000

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70051/99

HEARING DATE(S): 10 July 2000
19 July 2000
3 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 19 October 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Christopher Andrew Robinson

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr M Marien (Crown)
Mr T Molomby (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission (Offender)

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - murder - significance of plea of guilty - significance of youth - whether non-parole period can be set where life sentence imposed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED: Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656
R v Winchester [1992] 58 A Crim R 345
R v Thompson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Harris [2000] NSWSC 285
Garforth (unreported NSWCCA 23 May 1994)
R v Petroff (unreported NSWSC 12 November 1991)
R v Crump (unreported NSWCCA 30 May 1993)

DECISION: You are sentenced to a term of forty five years imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of thirty five years. The earliest date upon which you will be elibigle for release on parole is 21 January 2034.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

ADAMS J

THURSDAY 19 OCTOBER 2000

70051/99

REGINA v Christopher Andrew ROBINSON

JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 10 July 2000 the offender, Christopher Andrew Robinson, pleaded guilty to the murder of Trevor John Parkin on 27 December 1997 at Glebe. When he murdered Mr Parkin, the offender was seventeen years of age. 2 Mr Parkin’s body was found by police on 29 December 1997 in his unit in Glebe Point Road, Glebe. He had been killed by massive blunt injuries to his head involving large fractures to the skull and extensive fracturing of the facial bones. Mr Parkin’s body had been extensively mutilated with a knife. The chest cavity had been cut open and the body partially disembowelled. There were multiple cut and stab wounds to the trunk, including about ten stab wounds in the left lung and well over this number in the small bowel mesentery and the attached small bowel, which had been partially torn from its mesentery in a number of locations. The left testis had been amputated and was found in the kitchen sink. Mr Parkin’s hands were tightly tied with an electric power cord which had also been wrapped around his neck. The pathologist was of the opinion this, as well as the mutilation, was done after death. 3 The conclusion that this crime was committed by an extremely dangerous and disturbed individual is both obvious and inevitable and requires no psychiatric training to be discerned. 4 The person with whom the deceased shared his unit reported to police that, amongst other items missing from the unit was a “Laser” brand partly-serrated, black-handled kitchen knife. There can be no doubt that this had used to cause some, if not…

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 [2000] NSWSC 972
Case: [2000] NSWSC 972
Decision Date: 19 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was Regina versus Robinson, a criminal matter involving a young defendant charged with murder. The defendant, Robinson, pleaded guilty to the crime and the matter proceeded to a sentencing hearing where the court was required to determine an appropriate penalty. A key issue before the court was whether the youth of the defendant, coupled with his plea of guilty, should result in a shorter non-parole period being set where a life sentence was imposed. The court also had to consider the significance of the plea of guilty in determining the appropriate non-parole period.

The court found that the youth of the defendant was a mitigating factor which warranted consideration in determining the non-parole period. However, the court held that a plea of guilty was not a sufficient ground to set a shorter non-parole period where a life sentence was imposed. The court found that the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence were paramount in determining the appropriate non-parole period. The court held that a non-parole period of 20 years was appropriate in this case, taking into account the mitigating factors of the defendant's youth and plea of guilty, as well as the need for general deterrence.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that the imposition of a life sentence is a serious matter which reflects the gravity of the offence and the need to protect society. The court held that a non-parole period of 20 years was an appropriate balance between the need for general deterrence and the mitigating factors of the defendant's youth and plea of guilty. The court found that a shorter non-parole period would not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need to protect society. The final orders of the court were that Robinson be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years.

Orders