Regina v Ronnie Phillip Lovett - [2009] NSWSC 1427

CITATION: Regina v Ronnie Phillip Lovett [2009] NSWSC 1427

HEARING DATE(S): 16/10/09 - 18/12/09

JUDGMENT DATE :
18 December 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Barr AJ

DECISION: Ronnie Phillip Lovett, for the manslaughter of George Asprogiannis I sentence you to imprisonment. I set a non-parole period of eight years, which will be taken to have commenced on 10 August 2008 and which will expire on 9 August 2016. You will then become eligible for release to parole. I set a balance of the term of your sentence of two years and eight months, expiring on 9 April 2019.

CATEGORY: Sentence

PARTIES: Regina (Crown)
Ronnie Phillip Lovett (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/10120

COUNSEL: Crown - Mr P. Barnett SC
Defence - Mr G. Newton

SOLICITORS: Ms Karen Vaughan - Department of Public Prosecutions
Ms Chayana Miers - Australian Criminal Law Specialists

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

Barr AJ

18 December 2009

2009/10120 Regina v Ronnie Phillip Lovett
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Upon his trial for murder the offender, Ronnie Phillip Lovett, was found guilty of the manslaughter on 10 August 2008 of George Asprogiannis. The offender, then aged 21 years, had been in a domestic relationship of several years’ standing with Patricia Bloomfield-Gibbs. There were four children of that relationship. Until two or three weeks before the events giving rise to the charge of murder, he and Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs and the two youngest children, a boy of 3 years and a girl of 18 months, whom I shall call S and T respectively, were living in a house in a town in New South Wales. The offender and Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs had argued and separated a number of times during the relationship but had always resumed it. Another separation began about two or three weeks before 10 August 2008. The offender went to live with his mother and her husband at their house, about 20 minutes’ walk away. Both the offender and Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs had been users of opiates and had entered upon a methadone program by which they had to attend a daily clinic. During the separation they attended the clinic together, and were usually taken there by the offender’s mother or her husband. As well as that they had mutual obligations over the children. Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs wanted the offender to move back into the house with her and the two youngest children. I am satisfied that that was because she still loved him. I think also that the offender continued to have a strong regard for Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs. He regarded the house where she and the children continued to live as his. He told the Court, though mistakenly, that he was named on the lease. I am satisfied that strong bonds remained between the offender and Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs notwithstanding their separation.

2 During the period I have mentioned, a neighbour introduced Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs to the deceased. They became friendly. The deceased and his nephew, a young person known to Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs…

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 Ronnie Phillip Lovett 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: [2009] NSWSC 1427
Decision Date: 18 December 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Ronnie Phillip Lovett was sentenced by Barr AJ for the manslaughter of George Asprogiannis. Lovett, aged 21, had been in a domestic relationship with Patricia Bloomfield-Gibbs, with whom he had four children. Their separation, however, was short-lived, with Lovett residing with his mother. During this period, a neighbour introduced Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs to the deceased, leading to visits from the deceased and his nephew. On 10 August 2008, Lovett went to Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs's house to collect one of the children and, upon finding the deceased there, suspected him of trying to replace him with Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs. Lovett returned home, retrieved a knife, and later went back to Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs's house where he fatally stabbed the deceased, continuing the attack even after the latter was incapacitated.

The court had to determine whether Lovett's actions constituted murder or manslaughter. The court dismissed the possibility of excessive self-defence and unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter, as Lovett had brought the knife intending to use it. The court found that manslaughter by provocation was the most fitting charge, given that Lovett lost self-control upon finding Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs and the deceased in an intimate situation. The court also considered Lovett's criminal history, his drug abuse, and lack of remorse in determining the appropriate sentence.

Barr AJ sentenced Lovett to imprisonment for manslaughter, setting a non-parole period of eight years, commencing on 10 August 2008, and expiring on 9 August 2016. The balance of the sentence is two years and eight months, expiring on 9 April 2019. The court emphasised the gravity of the crime, Lovett's unlawful entry into Ms Bloomfield-Gibbs's house, and the use of a knife, all of which called for a strongly deterrent sentence. The court also considered the impact on the victim's family, expressing sympathy for their loss.

Orders