Regina v Loeber [2004] NSWSC 293

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Regina v Loeber [2004] NSWSC 293 HEARING DATE(S) : 2/2/04 - 10/2/04, 5/4/04 JUDGMENT DATE : 14 April 2004

JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJatCL at 1 DECISION : Sentence of imprisonment for 18 years to date from 22 January 2003. Non-parole period of 13 years also to date from 22 January 2003 and to expire on 21 January 2016 set.

CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - murder - plea of guilty. LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Regina v Doorey [2000] NSWCCA 456 CASES CITED : Regina v Rothapfel NSWCCA 4 August 1992 Regina v Simpson [2001] 53 NSWLR 704 PARTIES : Regina Peter John Loeber FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70038/03 COUNSEL : W. Creasy (Crown) A. Haesler SOLICITORS : C. K. Smith (Crown) S. E. O'Connor

- 15 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

WOOD CJ at CL

Wednesday 14 April 2004

70038/03 Regina v Peter John Loeber

SENTENCE 1 HIS HONOUR: On Monday 2 February 2004, the defendant appeared for trial, in the Supreme Court at Wollongong, on a charge of murder, to which he had pleaded not guilty at arraignment. A voir dire examination was conducted on that day, and on the two succeeding days, in relation to the admissibility of certain electronically recorded interviews. They had been conducted by Detectives from Logan Central Police Station, in Queensland and later, by New South Wales detectives, at Port Kembla, and included a video recorded walk through of the murder scene. In these interviews, and during the walk through, the defendant had made substantial admissions in relation to the murder of Lynette Gaye Bugden, which had occurred during the early hours of 14 January 1999. 2 A voir dire examination was also undertaken in relation to the admissibility, as tendency evidence, of certain material concerning some events at Oberon, in which it was alleged that the defendant had been involved. On Thursday 5 February 2004 I ruled the tendency evidence to be inadmissible, but allowed the tender of the admissions contained in the recorded interviews which had followed the arrest of the defendant, in Queensland, on 22 January 2003. That arrest had been effected pursuant to a warrant which had been issued in New South Wales, and executed pursuant to the Service and Execution of Process Act. 3 In the meantime a jury had been empanelled on Wednesday 4 February 2004, and sent away until the following Monday, pending the completion of the voir dire inquiries, and the rulings on the disputed evidence. On that day, in the presence of the jury, the defendant had repeated his earlier plea of not guilty. 4 When the matter came back for hearing on Monday 9 February 2004, the defendant changed his plea to one of guilty. The jury was then discharged, and the matter thereafter came back before me on the following day, and on Friday 2 April, in relation to sentence. 5 Prior to the admissions, which were made in Queensland, and repeated in Port Kembla, the defendant had been interviewed by police in this State on a number of occasions, and had consistently maintained his innocence. He had adopted a similar position when he was first spoken to by Queensland police on the morning of 22 January 2003, but had then confessed to the killing during an interview which had been conducted by the same police on the afternoon of that day, that is, after the New South Wales detectives had arrived at the police station, in order to arrange for his extradition. 6 I record this brief history of the proceedings as it is relevant to the timeliness of the plea, and to the discount which should be allowed pursuant to s 22 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. 7 The defendant has been in continuous custody since his arrest in Queensland, on 22 January 2003, and it is to that date that his sentence will be backdated.