AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 22 June 2000

R v Wright

[2000] NSWSC 568

Homicide
CRIMINAL LAW DETERMINATION OF LIFE SENTENCE.

Citation: R v Wright [2000] NSWSC 568
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division)
Date: 22 June 2000
Judge(s): Dunford J

Background

The applicant had been convicted of murder in the Supreme Court at Orange and sentenced to penal servitude for life on 1 March 1990. The murder arose from a deliberate scheme: the applicant lured the victim to a remote location under the pretense of a drug deal, shot him three times, and stole $12,000 in cash. The killing was premeditated, the drug deal entirely fictitious.

In January 1998, the applicant applied under s 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989 for a re-determination of his life sentence, seeking the substitution of a fixed minimum term and an additional term. By the time the application was heard, the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 had commenced, and the application was required to be determined under that Act's Schedule 1 provisions.

The Crown neither supported nor opposed the application.

  • Whether the life sentence should be re-determined and replaced with a fixed term consisting of a non-parole period and a parole term
  • Whether "special circumstances" existed to justify fixing a non-parole period of less than three-quarters of the total sentence, as required under the new legislative framework

Decision

Dunford J examined the circumstances of the offence in detail. The applicant had lured the victim with a fabricated drug deal, loaded a shotgun while waiting for the victim to arrive, and shot him three times, including a close-range shot to the head while the victim lay on the ground. The applicant then stole the victim's cash and subsequently attempted to construct a false alibi and nominate another person as the shooter, a version he maintained at trial but later abandoned.

On the question of prospects and rehabilitation, Dunford J accepted the evidence of the prison psychologist and a report from Ms Innis that the applicant appeared genuinely remorseful, had accepted responsibility for his actions, and had made commendable efforts in acquiring trade, literacy, and life-coping skills during his incarceration. The court noted that his prior criminal record contained no offences of violence, and was satisfied he was unlikely to re-offend in a similar way.

Regarding the structure of the re-determined sentence, the court found that the applicant's need for an extended period of supervised support after release constituted special circumstances. This justified setting the non-parole period at less than three-quarters of the total sentence. Dunford J re-sentenced the applicant to a fixed term of 22 years with a non-parole period of 15 years.

Orders Made

  • The applicant was re-sentenced to imprisonment for 22 years, deemed to have commenced on 9 December 1988
  • A non-parole period of 15 years was fixed
  • The earliest date for eligibility for release on parole was set at 8 December 2003

Key Takeaways

  • Under Schedule 1 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (as applied to pending applications by Schedule 2, cl 21), a non-parole period must not be less than three-quarters of the re-determined sentence unless the court finds special circumstances, a more restrictive requirement than existed under the former s 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989.
  • A genuine and sustained need for extended post-release supervision can constitute "special circumstances" justifying a non-parole period below the statutory three-quarters threshold.
  • The Supreme Court treated the applicant's genuine remorse, acceptance of responsibility, absence of prior violent offending, and positive response to rehabilitation programs as relevant considerations supporting re-determination with a fixed term.
  • Where an applicant initially provided false versions of events and maintained those versions through trial, the court may still accept subsequent acknowledgment of guilt as reflecting genuine remorse, provided that acceptance is supported by independent expert evidence.
  • The commencement date of the re-determined sentence was fixed at the date of first remand in custody, with no adjustment made for a period when the applicant had been released on bail.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW), s 13A
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 44(2), Schedule 1 (cl 5), Schedule 2 (cl 21)

Cases cited: No cases were cited in the provided text.