Citation: Regina v Hill [2000] NSWSC 259
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division)
Date: 27 March 2000
Judge(s): O'Keefe J
Background
On 21 February 1999, Robert John Hill (the prisoner) attacked four people at an industrial estate in Berkeley Vale, NSW, using a Winchester Magnum .22 calibre rifle. The victims were small business operators and a couple who had come to their respective premises on a Sunday. The incident arose from a dispute about loud music at the complex, where the prisoner was unlawfully residing in an industrial unit.
The prisoner armed himself, forced his way into a neighbouring unit, and then entered the worksite of two men engaged in metalworking. He shot and killed Bradley James Watson, and then deliberately shot the already-fallen Watson through the head at close range. He also shot and wounded Michael Rasic, with the bullet lodging in Rasic's lung within three millimetres of his aorta. The prisoner then encountered Wayne Lawrence John O'Shea and his wife Wendy Joy O'Shea, shooting and killing Mr O'Shea and wounding Mrs O'Shea.
The prisoner pleaded guilty to both murders. The Crown accepted pleas to two counts of maliciously discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (in respect of Rasic and Mrs O'Shea), in lieu of the original charges of wounding with intent to murder.
Legal Issues
- What sentences were appropriate for two counts of murder, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences and the circumstances of the offender?
- Whether a sentence of life imprisonment should be imposed for either or both murders.
- What weight should be given to mitigating factors, including guilty pleas, the prisoner's background, and the conduct of his son Jason in influencing the outcome?
- What sentences were appropriate for the two counts of maliciously discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm?
Decision
O'Keefe J described the killings in the strongest terms. The execution-style shooting of Watson, who had already fallen wounded, was characterised as brutal, callous, and deliberate. The court found the prisoner had acted with premeditation and without provocation from any of the victims, who were all described as hardworking, law-abiding people.
The court considered whether life imprisonment was warranted. After weighing the extreme gravity of the offences against mitigating factors, the court concluded that a life sentence would not be imposed. The judgment specifically acknowledged the role of the prisoner's son Jason in influencing that outcome, though the precise nature of that influence is not fully set out in the available text. The court also noted the prisoner had made a despicable comment about his son to police shortly after arrest, and expressed the expectation that the prisoner would reflect on that with remorse.
The court imposed heavy minimum terms for the murders, with additional terms of life, emphasising community revulsion, retribution, denunciation of the crimes, and general deterrence as the governing sentencing purposes. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, commencing 24 February 1999.
Orders Made
- Murder 1 (Watson): minimum term of 30 years penal servitude, additional term of life; eligible for parole 23 February 2029.
- Murder 2 (O'Shea): minimum term of 25 years penal servitude, additional term of life; eligible for parole 23 February 2024.
- Malicious discharge of firearm with intent (Mrs O'Shea): minimum term of 9 years, additional term of 3 years; eligible for parole 23 February 2008.
- Malicious discharge of firearm with intent (Rasic): minimum term of 9 years, additional term of 3 years; eligible for parole 23 February 2008.
- All sentences to be served concurrently, dating from 24 February 1999.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court declined to impose life imprisonment despite the extreme objective seriousness of two premeditated murders, citing mitigating factors that included the prisoner's guilty pleas and personal circumstances.
- Where a prisoner commits multiple offences arising from a single episode, concurrent sentences may be appropriate, even across counts of significantly varying gravity.
- Sentencing for offences of this nature engaged the full range of traditional purposes: retribution, denunciation, community protection, and general deterrence.
- A coup de grace shooting of an already-wounded victim was treated by the court as a serious aggravating feature, reflecting callous and deliberate conduct beyond the initial act of violence.
- Under the sentencing structure then applicable, minimum and additional terms could be combined so that the additional term was expressed as "life," effectively leaving the question of release beyond the minimum term open-ended.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 19A and 431B
- Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW)
Cases cited: No cases were cited in the portions of the judgment provided.