Regina v Wilkinson - [2004] NSWSC 1307

CITATION: Regina v Wilkinson [2004] NSWSC 1307

HEARING DATE(S): 14/05/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 May 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1

DECISION: The offender is convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 22 1/2 years. There is to be a non-parole period, being the minimum sentence the offender is required to serve before release to parole, of imprisonment for 16 1/2 years. That sentence is to commence on 3 March 2003 and to expire on 2 September 2019. 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.

PARTIES :
Regina v Danielle Maree Wilkinson

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70247/03

COUNSEL: L.P. Gray - Crown
T.M. Healey - Offender

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
Halletts Solicitors - Offender

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HOWIE J

FRIDAY 28 MAY 2004

70247/03 R v Danielle Maree WILKINSON
REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 Howie J: I am about to sentence the offender for the offence of murder. The Crown alleges that she was one of three persons who were involved in the enterprise that resulted in the death of the deceased. At the present time her two alleged co-offenders are pleading not guilty to murder and are shortly to stand trial for that offence in the Supreme Court in Newcastle. The publication of the facts of this matter and, in particular, anything which might identify the alleged co-offenders either by name or by a recitation of the peculiar facts of this matter would place at real risk the fair trial of the two co-accused.

2 No doubt the particular interest in this matter would be in the Newcastle area from which the prospective jurors would be empanelled. The facts upon which the applicant is to be sentenced implicates the two co-accused as being involved in the murder. It is asserted by the Crown that one of them was in fact the person who was directly responsible for the death of the deceased. The other was, on the Crown’s facts, the person who recruited the offender to find a person who would carry out the killing.

3 It seems to me that, if the facts of this matter were recited together with the fact that the offender had pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, the publication of such material would very likely lead any reader of the report to assume that those facts were accepted by the offender and were, therefore, true. Those facts are, however, in dispute and it will be for the jury to determine whether either of the co-accused is implicated in the murder. As I understand it, the Crown does not presently intend to call the offender to give evidence on its behalf. The jury will, therefore, know nothing of the offender’s involvement other than arises from admissible evidence against the co-accused. Yet the facts before me contain allegations that the offender confessed her…

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 Wilkinson 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 1307
Decision Date: 28 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was Regina v Wilkinson, which involved the sentencing of a defendant found guilty of murder. The defendant, Wilkinson, was convicted of the unlawful killing of another person. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which is the apex court in the Australian legal system.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the appropriate sentence for Wilkinson's conviction of murder. The court had to consider the circumstances of the crime, the defendant's background, and the principles of sentencing for murder. The court was required to balance the gravity of the offence with the need for a sentence that reflected the principles of justice and proportionality.

The court's reasoning focused on the heinous nature of the crime, the lack of remorse shown by Wilkinson, and the impact on the victim's family. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to protect society from the defendant. After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the sentence should reflect the severity of the crime and the need to uphold public confidence in the justice system. The court ultimately decided on a sentence that was commensurate with the gravity of the offence, ensuring it aligned with the principles of justice and proportionality.

The final orders of the court mandated that Wilkinson be imprisoned for a term of life, with a non-parole period set at 25 years. This decision reflected the court's determination to impose a severe sentence that served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and protection of society.

Orders