AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
1
Supreme Court 31 May 2019

R v June Oh Seo

[2019] NSWSC 639

Assault & violenceHomicideDomestic & family violence
CRIME MURDER ASSAULT OCCASIONING ACTUAL BODILY HARM FORM 1 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENCES PLEA OF GUILTY

Citation: R v June Oh Seo [2019] NSWSC 639
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 31 May 2019
Judge: Wilson J

Background

The offender was the former romantic partner of the deceased. Their relationship began in early 2017 and lasted only a matter of months before the deceased sought to end it. During that time, the offender displayed persistent controlling and possessive behaviour, including monitoring the deceased's movements, restricting her contact with male friends and colleagues, and repeatedly threatening to take his own life if she left him.

After the offender moved out of the deceased's apartment in August 2017, he continued to contact her frequently and pressed to resume the relationship. On 7 October 2017 he attended her apartment and remained there over the weekend and into the early hours of Monday, 9 October 2017. The deceased was murdered that morning; her body was found after she fell or was thrown from the apartment's 23rd-floor balcony.

The offender pleaded guilty to murder in the Local Court on 1 November 2018 and maintained that plea in the Supreme Court. He also asked the Court to take into account, on a Form 1, a further offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm against the deceased on the same day.

  • What sentence should be imposed for murder, having regard to the standard non-parole period of 20 years, the objective gravity of the offence, and the personal circumstances of the offender?
  • What discount should be applied to reflect the offender's guilty plea?
  • Whether the Form 1 assault offence should affect the overall sentence.
  • Whether special circumstances existed to justify varying the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and the total sentence.
  • What weight should be given to the offender's mental state, any relevant psychiatric evidence, and his prospects of rehabilitation?

Decision

Wilson J found that the objective gravity of the murder was at the higher end of the range. The killing occurred in a domestic violence context, preceded by a sustained pattern of controlling behaviour, and the deceased had expressed fear for her life well before she was killed. The Court drew on the High Court's observation in Munda v Western Australia that sentencing courts must firmly vindicate the right of those in intimate relationships to be safe from violence.

Her Honour accepted that the offender had a prior domestic violence matter from 2016 involving a different woman, and that his controlling conduct appeared deeply ingrained. The Court found that the guilty plea was entitled to the standard 25% discount, though it noted the plea more likely reflected the offender's recognition of the strength of the evidence against him than genuine remorse or acceptance of responsibility.

The Court declined to find special circumstances. Although the offender's status as a Korean national with limited English and no local family would make imprisonment more isolating, her Honour treated that as a factor going to the overall penalty rather than a basis for altering the statutory ratio. The psychiatric evidence did not support the conclusion that a longer parole period would advantage the offender's rehabilitation.

The Form 1 assault offence was taken into account in arriving at the total sentence.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of the murder of the deceased on 9 October 2017 at Chatswood.
  • Sentenced to imprisonment for 22 years and 6 months, commencing 9 October 2017 and expiring 8 April 2040.
  • Non-parole period of 16 years and 10 months, expiring 8 August 2034.
  • The offender was warned that the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) may apply to him.

Key Takeaways

  • A guilty plea to murder in a domestic violence context attracted the standard 25% discount, though the Supreme Court signalled scepticism about whether the plea reflected genuine remorse where the evidence against the offender was strong.
  • Sentencing courts must give significant weight to the need to protect individuals from lethal domestic violence, consistent with the High Court's reasoning in Munda v Western Australia that intimate relationships must be safe and that courts should not apply a more tolerant approach to such killings.
  • The standard non-parole period of 20 years for murder operates as a legislative guidepost informing, rather than mandating, the sentencing discretion, following Muldrock v The Queen.
  • Isolation and cultural disadvantage during imprisonment, such as limited English skills and the absence of local family, may be treated as factors bearing on the overall penalty without necessarily grounding a finding of special circumstances.
  • Prior domestic violence offending against a different victim, even where it predated the relationship with the deceased, was treated as an aggravating feature relevant to the assessment of the offender's character and prospects of rehabilitation.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18(1)(a), 59(1)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
- Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW)
- Mental Health Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases
- Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
- Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
- R v Previtera (1997) 94 A Crim R 76
- R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353