Legal Research
Cases
Versluys v R

Versluys v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 76 3 April 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: VERSLUYS v R [2008] NSWCCA 76

HEARING DATE(S): 25 March 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 47; Price J at 48

DECISION: 1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction and sentence - murder - strangulation of de facto partner - whether conviction for murder unsafe and unsatisfactory - whether evidence only supported a conviction for manslaughter - whether appellant had an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm - whether trial judge gave balanced summing up - whether matter fell within middle range of objective seriousness - whether trial judge erred in imposing standard non-parole period

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Apps v R [2006] NSWCCA 290
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487
MLP v R (2006) 164 A Crim R 93; NSWCCA 271
R v Slater (2001) 121 A Crim R 369; [2001] NSWCCA 65
R v AJP (2004) 150 A Crim R 575; [2004] NSWCCA 434

PARTIES: Lee Thomas Versluys (Appellant)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3222

COUNSEL: A Haesler SC (Appellant on sentence only)
Appellant in person on conviction
L Babb SC/M Rabsch (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Appellant on sentence)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2005/839

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Newman AJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 24 March 2006

2007/3222

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
PRICE J
THURSDAY 3 APRIL 2008

VERSLUYS, Lee Thomas v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The appellant was convicted of the murder of Jodie Hingston. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (s 19A Crimes Act 1900). The standard non-parole period for the offence is 20 years imprisonment: (s 54A and 54B of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999).

2 Following his conviction the appellant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 20 years imprisonment, commencing on 27 July 2004 and expiring on 26 July 2024, with an additional term of 6 years and 8 months commencing on 27 July 2024.

3 The appellant appeals against his conviction and seeks leave to appeal against the sentence. He appeared for himself in relation to the conviction appeal but was represented by counsel in relation to the matter of sentence.

Facts

4 The facts are in a short compass. The appellant who was aged 30 at the time and the deceased, who was aged 26, had been living together at a boarding house in Redfern for approximately 6 days. They had been living in a de facto relationship for in excess of 6 years prior to that time.

5 The parents of the deceased gave evidence at the trial. Her mother said that in 2003 the appellant and the deceased resided with them for a period. During…

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

Details

AGLC: Versluys v R [2008] NSWCCA 76
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 76
Decision Date: 3 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Versluys was convicted of the murder of his de facto partner, involving her strangulation, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a standard non-parole period. He appealed against his conviction and sentence, raising several grounds of appeal including the safety of the conviction, the adequacy of the summing up by the trial judge, and the appropriateness of the non-parole period imposed. The court was required to consider whether the evidence supported only a conviction for manslaughter, whether the appellant had the necessary intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm for a murder conviction, whether the summing up was balanced, and whether the non-parole period was appropriate.

The court considered the evidence presented and concluded that the appellant's intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm was established, thus affirming the murder conviction. The court found that the trial judge's summing up was balanced and did not err in any material way. It was determined that the matter fell within the middle range of objective seriousness, justifying the imposition of a standard non-parole period. The court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and the sentence imposed.

Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. The sentence was affirmed, and the appellant's appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders