Simpson J at [1]; Hidden J at [2]; Hamill J at [3].
Decision:
(1) Appeal allowed.
(2) The sentence imposed by Newman AJ is quashed, and in lieu the appellant is sentenced to Imprisonment for 23 years and six months commencing on 27 July 2004 and concluding on 26 January 2028. There will be a non-parole period of 17 years and six months commencing on 27 July 2004 and concluding on 26 January 2022. The earliest date upon which the Appellant will become eligible for parole is 26 January 2022.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - murder - appeal against sentence - Muldrock error - standard non-parole period - re-sentencing - new sentence imposed
I McLachlan (Appellant) N Norman SC (Crown) Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW(Appellant)Solicitor of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):
2013/214339
Publication restriction:
Nil
Decision under appeal
Citation:
Unreported remarks on sentence. R v Versluys v R [2008] NSWCCA 76
Date of Decision:
2006-03-24 00:00:00
Before:
Newman AJ
File Number(s):
2005/839
Judgment
Simpson J: I agree with Hamill J.
Hidden J: I agree with Hamill J. I doubt that it is necessary to make a finding of special circumstances simply for the purpose of rounding off the length of the non-parole period.
Hamill J On 27 July 2004, Lee Versluys (the Appellant) murdered his de facto partner, Jodie…
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 Versluys v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Versluys v R [2014] NSWCCA 98
Case
[2014] NSWCCA 98
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Versluys versus the Crown, the appellant sought to appeal against his sentence for murder, contending that the original sentence imposed was excessive and failed to consider the mitigating factors properly. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years. He argued that the trial judge erred in applying the sentencing principles and in calculating the standard non-parole period, which he claimed was too long given his age and the circumstances of the offence. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate and should be upheld.
The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in applying the sentencing principles and whether the standard non-parole period was correctly calculated. The court had to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, warranting a reduction, and whether the trial judge had taken into account all relevant factors, including the appellant's age and the mitigating circumstances. The court also needed to consider if the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and whether the appellant's age should have played a significant role in determining the non-parole period.
The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in applying the sentencing principles and in calculating the standard non-parole period. It was held that the trial judge had not adequately considered the appellant's age and other mitigating factors, which warranted a reduction in the non-parole period. The court held that a non-parole period of 17 years was more appropriate. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the original sentencing court for re-sentencing. In re-sentencing, the court imposed a new sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 17 years.