REGINA v. LULHAM [2000] NSWSC 703

REGINA v. LULHAM [2000] NSWSC 703

The offender knowingly provided the firearm and ammunition, drove DT to the scene, realised DT would kill the deceased if present, and assented to and encouraged the killing. Although he was not the actual assassin and was not proved to be the instigator or prime mover, his moral culpability was otherwise little different from DT's. His guilty plea, minimal assistance, subjective circumstances, brain dysfunction, and rehabilitation prospects warranted some mitigation, but not an identical sentence to DT because DT had given greater co-operation and other matters personal to him, and the offender was on a current recognisance. A sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 13 and a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Murder Sentence / Sentence After Plea of Guilty to Murder
Outcome
Offender convicted on plea of guilty to murder and sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years with a non-parole period of 13 and a half years.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'accessory and Principal' 'parity' 'guilty Plea' 'assistance to Police' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['murder' 'accessory and Principal' 'parity' 'guilty Plea' 'assistance to Police' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Murder Sentence / Sentence After Plea of Guilty to Murder

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What facts and role should be found against the offender on sentence after his guilty plea to murder.' 'Whether the offender and DT should be treated as equally culpable, and whether parity required the same sentence as DT.' "What allowance should be made for the offender's guilty plea and limited assistance to police." "Whether the offender's subjective circumstances, including alcohol abuse and brain dysfunction, mitigated sentence." 'Whether special circumstances justified varying the statutory proportion for the non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offender knowingly provided the firearm and ammunition, drove DT to the scene, realised DT would kill the deceased if present, and assented to and encouraged the killing. Although he was not the actual assassin and was not proved to be the instigator or prime mover, his moral culpability was otherwise little different from DT's. His guilty plea, minimal assistance, subjective circumstances, brain dysfunction, and rehabilitation prospects warranted some mitigation, but not an identical sentence to DT because DT had given greater co-operation and other matters personal to him, and the offender was on a current recognisance. A sentence of 18 years with a non-parole period of 13 and a...

Court Disposition

Offender convicted on plea of guilty to murder and sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years with a non-parole period of 13 and a half years.

Orders

  • ['In the published remarks on sentence and in any published transcript of argument or evidence, the person who gave evidence is to be referred to by the pseudonym "DT".' 'The offender is sentenced to imprisonment for 18 years commencing on 14 November 1998.' 'A non-parole period of 13 and a half years is set,...