Regina v TJA - [2004] NSWSC 1308

CITATION: Regina v TJA [2004] NSWSC 1308

HEARING DATE(S): 28/06/2004, 5/7/2004, 30/07/2004, 9/08/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 22 1/2 years. There is to be a non-parole period, being the minimum sentence required to be served before release to parole, of imprisonment for 16 1/2 years. The sentence is to commence on 3 March 2003 and to expire on 2 September 2019 the date upon which he is eliigible to be released to parole. The balance of the term of the sentence is imprisonment for 6 years to date from 3 September 2019.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence for conviction of murder

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131

PARTIES :
Regina v TJA

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70098/03

COUNSEL: P. Barnett - Crown
Offender - S. Austin

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
Coast Law - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

NEWCASTLE: MONDAY 9 AUGUST 2004

70098/03 REGINA v TJA
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 28 June last the offender, TJA, pleaded guilty to the murder of Michael Willard on 22 February 2003 at Muswellbrook. The offender shot Mr Willard at point blank range as he slept on the lounge in the family room of his home. The offender was in those premises, on material placed before me, because of an arrangement he had made with the deceased’s wife to kill her husband so that she could obtain the proceeds of insurance policies recently taken out by her on his life.

2 The offender had been driven to the premises by his then partner, Danielle Wilkinson, and, having killed the deceased was driven by her from the scene. Both the offender and Ms Wilkinson hoped to obtain financial or other benefits from the deceased’s wife, as a result of their involvement in the killing of the husband, when she obtained the proceeds of the insurance policies.

3 A very brief statement of facts reveals the seriousness of the offence for which the offender must be sentenced. It is a murder towards the upper end of seriousness for offences of its kind, being in fact a contract killing, although, as I noted in sentencing Ms Wilkinson, of a domestic rather than a commercial nature. I sentenced Ms Wilkinson, following her plea of guilty to the same offence, to imprisonment for twenty-two and a half years with a non-parole period of sixteen and a half years. That sentence was calculated on the basis of allowing her a 20 percent discount for her plea of guilty and an additional five percent on the basis of her expressions of contrition and remorse from a period shortly after the killing through until she pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court. I also took into account, in her case, in determining…

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 TJA 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: [2004] NSWSC 1308
Decision Date: 9 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v TJA involved the appellant, TJA, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The matter was brought before the High Court of Australia for review of the sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate given the circumstances of the crime and the appellant's background.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in the context of murder, considering the gravity of the offence and the appellant's personal circumstances. It was necessary to assess whether the sentence reflected an appropriate balance between the need for punishment and deterrence, and the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation. The court also considered whether there were any mitigating factors that warranted a lesser sentence.

The court found that while the crime was heinous, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It acknowledged the severity of the crime and the need for appropriate punishment, but also recognised the appellant's background and potential for rehabilitation. The court determined that the sentence was proportionate to the crime and took into account the principles of sentencing as established in previous case law. The appeal against the sentence was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence of life imprisonment was upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed and that the sentence of life imprisonment remain in effect. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering both the gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender in the sentencing process.

Orders