R v Richardson [2012] NSWSC 521

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Richardson [2012] NSWSC 521 Hearing dates: 28, 31 October 20113, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 1821, 22,23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28 November 2011 Decision date: 18 May 2012 Before: McCallum J Decision: Offender convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 21 years commencing on 4 May 2010 and concluding on 3 May 2031 and a balance of term of 7 years concluding on 3 May 2038. Catchwords: CRIME -murder - sentence after trial - whether offender intended to kill the deceased - treatment of body after death aggravating offence Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1990 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Cases Cited: Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2005) 244 CLR 120 R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 R v Knight (2006) 164 A Crim R 126; [2006] NSWCCA 292 R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 R v Wilkinson (No 5) [2009] NSWSC 432 R v Yeo [2003] NSWSC 315 Category: Sentence Parties: Crown Neal Richardson (offender) Representation: S Huggett (Crown) G Turnbull SC (Offender) Office of Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) George Sten & Co (Offender) File Number(s): 2010/8110783 Publication restriction: None

Judgment 1Neal Richardson was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Kirrilee Nicole Grant. He now stands to be sentenced for that offence. 2At the proceedings on sentence, victim impact statements were provided to the Court from Ms Grant's mother and father. Their statements reveal the devastating impact that Ms Grant's death has had on them and on Ms Grant's daughter, Natasha, who has been in their care since she was two years old. It is important to note that the Court is not permitted in this case to take the victim impact statements into account in determining the sentence to be imposed on the offender, for the reasons explained by Hunt CJ at CL in R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76 at 86. The statements received nonetheless afford the Court the opportunity to acknowledge the grief of those who knew and loved Kirrilee Grant. 3The maximum penalty for the offence of murder is imprisonment for life: section 19A of the Crimes Act 1900. A standard non-parole period of twenty years is prescribed for the offence under section 54A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Section 61(1) of the Act mandates the imposition of a life sentence in a case where the Court is satisfied that the level of culpability in the commission of the offence is so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence. The Crown did not contend that the present offence falls within the terms of that section. I am satisfied that it does not. 4The determination of the appropriate sentence to be imposed is guided by both the maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period. I have had regard to the fact that, in accordance with the Act, twenty years is the non-parole period for an offence of murder in the middle of the range of objective seriousness. As recently explained by the High Court, the guidance afforded by that statutory fact is informed only by reference to the nature of the offending, without reference to matters personal to the offender: Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39 at [27]; (2005) 244 CLR 120. The offence in the middle range is hypothetical and does not comprehend the range of factors relevant to sentencing in the individual case before the Court: at [31]. Accordingly, contrary to a line of appellate authority preceding the decision in Muldrock, the Court is not required to assess whether the individual offence under consideration is within the mid-range of objective seriousness: see Muldrock at [25] and [29]. 5It nonetheless remains an important aspect of the sentencing task to assess the objective seriousness of the offence, including consideration of any circumstances personal to the offender that are causally connected to the commission of the offence. 6The task is to identify and consider all factors relevant to the sentence (including any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors listed in s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and to make a value judgment as to the appropriate sentence given all the factors of the case: Muldrock at [26], citing Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51] per McHugh J. The statutory specification of a standard non-parole period is one of the relevant factors but is not to be taken as the starting point in determining the appropriate sentence.