AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 14 December 2012

R v Purtill

[2012] NSWSC 1475

Assault & violenceHomicide
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE MURDER USE OF WEAPON WOUNDING WITH INTENT TO KILL DISPOSAL OF DECEASED'S BODY

Citation: R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 1475
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 14 December 2012
Judge(s): Harrison J

Background

The offender was convicted after trial of murdering a 60-year-old businessman at his home in Lennox Head on 8 February 2010. The deceased had visited the offender's home alone that afternoon. The offender killed him by cutting his throat with a knife.

After the killing, the offender's brother attended the scene. The two men wrapped the deceased's body in a canvas swag, transported it by vehicle, and buried it in a shallow grave in a remote location near Broadwater. The brother also drove the deceased's car to South Ballina, took credit cards from the vehicle, and spent several days cleaning the crime scene with chemicals and replacing a broken toilet.

The offender was arrested on 26 February 2010 and remained in custody from that date. He was found guilty at trial on 15 June 2012. The brother, Warren Purtill, pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact and gave evidence at the offender's trial pursuant to an undertaking, receiving a discount on his sentence in return.

  • What sentence was appropriate for murder, having regard to all aggravating and mitigating factors under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999?
  • What weight should be given to the standard non-parole period of 20 years as a sentencing guidepost, following Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39?
  • How should the court treat the offender's lack of remorse, his use of a knife, the disposal of the body, and his prospects of rehabilitation in fixing the sentence?

Decision

Harrison J applied the approach confirmed in Muldrock v R, which requires a sentencing court to identify all relevant factors and reach an overall judgment, rather than treating the standard non-parole period as a starting point or threshold. The standard non-parole period of 20 years for murder represents the non-parole period for a hypothetical mid-range offence, considered without reference to individual aggravating or mitigating matters.

His Honour concluded that the offence fell within the middle range of objective seriousness. However, several aggravating factors elevated the sentence above that baseline. The offender used a knife, the killing was particularly violent, and the offender subsequently disposed of the body in a bush grave. The reason for the attack remained entirely unexplained. The offender's account at trial was described as "patently incredible," and his continued silence meant the true circumstances of the killing may never be known. There was no remorse.

On the other side of the ledger, Harrison J acknowledged that the offender had good prospects of rehabilitation. These mitigating factors were weighed alongside the aggravating ones. The overall process was an holistic balancing of all relevant sentencing factors, consistent with the High Court's guidance in Markarian v R and Muldrock.

A victim impact statement from the deceased's family was received and acknowledged. Harrison J noted the profound and ongoing grief suffered by the family, while confirming that the statement could not, under established authority, be used to increase the sentence.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 28 years.
  • Non-parole period of 21 years, commencing 26 February 2010 and expiring 25 February 2031.
  • Balance of term of 7 years, commencing 26 February 2031 and expiring 25 February 2038.
  • The earliest date of eligibility for parole is 26 February 2031.

Key Takeaways

  • Following Muldrock v R, the Supreme Court confirmed that sentencing for murder does not begin with an assessment of whether the offence falls at the mid-range of objective seriousness; rather, all aggravating and mitigating factors must be identified and weighed together to reach an appropriate sentence.
  • A conclusion that an offence sits in the middle range of seriousness does not automatically produce the standard non-parole period. The standard non-parole period operates as one consideration within a broader, holistic assessment.
  • Disposal of a victim's body after a killing was treated as a distinct aggravating factor, separate from the circumstances of the killing itself.
  • The absence of remorse and the offering of an incredible version of events at trial were relevant factors informing the overall sentence, alongside the use of a weapon and the violence of the attack.
  • Victim impact statements are received and acknowledged by the court, but established authority (including R v Previtera and R v Bollen) prevents them from being used to increase the quantum of the sentence.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 54B(2), 54B(3), 55B(2)

Cases
- Knight v R [2006] NSWCCA 292; (2006) 164 A Crim R 126
- Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
- Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
- R v Bollen (1998) 99 A Crim R 510
- R v Dong [2010] NSWSC 1242
- R v Goundar [2010] NSWSC 1170
- R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374; (1997) 90 A Crim R 587
- R v Pilley (1991) 56 A Crim R 202
- R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
- R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 566 (related earlier decision)
- R v Spathis; R v Patsalis [2001] NSWCCA 476
- R v Yeo [2003] NSWSC 315; (2006) A Crim R 126