Regina v Wigney - [2003] NSWSC 1136

CITATION: REGINA v WIGNEY [2003] NSWSC 1136

HEARING DATE(S): 9/4/03, 16/4/03, 22/4/03, 28/4/03, 25/7/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 December 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

DECISION: Armed robbery: Sentenced to 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months commencing on 10 August 2001.; Murder: Sentenced to 13 years 8 months with a non-parole period of 8 years 6 months commencing on 10 August 2004 and expiring on 9 February 2013.

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - murder - no matter of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s18
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss 13A, 23(3)

CASES CITED: R v Crump (unreported, NSWCCA, 30 May 1993
R v Mills (unreported) NSWCCA 3 April 1995
R v Irani [2202] 153
R v Petrinovic [2001] NSWCCA 118
R v Previtera (1997) A Crim R 76
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Petroff (unreported, NSWSC 12 November 1991
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES :
Regina
Shane John Wigney (Offender)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70064/02

COUNSEL: Mr T Hoyle SC (Crown)
Mr A Morison (Offender)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Ross Hill & Associates (Offender)

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL LIST

ADAMS J

WEDNESDAY 3 DECEMBER 2003

70064/02 REGINA v WIGNEY
JUDGMENT

1 ADAMS J: On 22 April 2003 Shane John Wigney pleaded guilty to a charge that he murdered Mark Jackson on 19 July 2001 at Leichhardt. On 25 July 2003 Wigney also pleaded guilty to the armed robbery on 11 July 2001 at Hurlestone Park of one Gouda Abdel-Malak of cash and jewellery whilst armed with a .45 calibre Colt semi-automatic pistol. The offender has also asked the Court to take five other matters into consideration when sentencing him for this offence. I will return to those matters in due course. The facts of the two offences to which the offender pleaded guilty were agreed and, in substance, are as follows.

2 At about 2.20am on Thursday 19 July 2001 the offender, together with a person I shall call AB, entered the bar of the Taverners Hill Hotel in Parramatta Road, Leichhardt, having agreed that the two of them would conduct an armed hold-up of the hotel to obtain money to finance their drug addictions. Both men were dressed in dark clothing and each wore an item of clothing concealing their faces. The offender was armed with a loaded Colt .45 calibre pistol whilst AB was armed with a knife. When he entered the hotel, the offender confronted a Mr Jekov, who was employed by the hotel as a security officer, and ordered him and five or so customers who were nearby to move to the end of the bar. A number of other customers were in another area of the hotel playing poker machines but they were unaware that a robbery was occurring. Once the customers had moved to the far end of the bar, the offender ordered them to lie down on the…

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 Wigney

Details

AGLC: Regina v Wigney [2003] NSWSC 1136
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1136
Decision Date: 3 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the sentencing of a defendant who had been convicted of murder. The defendant, Wigney, had been found guilty of the murder of a woman, and the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for this serious offence. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had been convicted of murder. The court needed to consider various factors in determining the sentence, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The court also needed to consider the principles of sentencing for murder, as well as the relevant statutory provisions and case law.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime. The court noted that while the defendant had no prior criminal history, the nature of the offence was such that a significant sentence was warranted. The court also considered the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the community. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court determined that the sentence should reflect the principles of justice and deterrence, while also taking into account the specific circumstances of the case. The court ultimately decided on an appropriate sentence that balanced these considerations.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment for the defendant, with a non-parole period of 20 years. The court's decision was based on the principles of justice, deterrence, and the specific circumstances of the case, and it reflected the gravity of the offence and the impact of the crime on the victim and the community.

Orders