Regina v Plevac [2004] NSWSC 916

Regina v Plevac [2004] NSWSC 916

Although the murder was callous, planned and appalling, in the worst category of murder, committed with intent to kill, and the applicant had shown no contrition, the Court granted redetermination because the earlier sentencing remarks contemplated that subjective matters could support a determinate sentence, the applicant had no other convictions, had an otherwise blameless life and good employment history, had been close to a model prisoner with excellent work conduct, and Dr Lucas assessed him as capable of rehabilitation without undue difficulty. The objective seriousness required a longer sentence than comparable burning-murder cases, so a specified term of twenty-five years and a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Application / Application Pursuant to Sch 1 of the Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act for Determination of a Term of Imprisonment and Non Parole Period to Replace a Life Sentence
Outcome
Life sentence redetermined; application granted by setting a specified term and non-parole period.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'life Sentence Redetermination' 'non Parole Period' 'contrition' 'rehabilitation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['murder' 'life Sentence Redetermination' 'non Parole Period' 'contrition' 'rehabilitation']

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 Sentencing Application / Application Pursuant to Sch 1 of the Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act for Determination of a Term of Imprisonment and Non Parole Period to Replace a Life Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's life sentence for murder should be redetermined by setting a specified term and a non-parole period under sch 1 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act." "Whether the seriousness of the planned murder and the applicant's continuing denial of guilt and lack of contrition required refusal of a determinate sentence." 'What specified term and non-parole period should replace the life sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the murder was callous, planned and appalling, in the worst category of murder, committed with intent to kill, and the applicant had shown no contrition, the Court granted redetermination because the earlier sentencing remarks contemplated that subjective matters could support a determinate sentence, the applicant had no other convictions, had an otherwise blameless life and good employment history, had been close to a model prisoner with excellent work conduct, and Dr Lucas assessed him as capable of rehabilitation without undue difficulty. The objective seriousness required a longer sentence than comparable burning-murder cases, so a specified term of twenty-five years and a...

Court Disposition

Life sentence redetermined; application granted by setting a specified term and non-parole period.

Orders

  • ['Specified term for the sentence of twenty-five years commencing on 22 September 1989 and expiring on 21 September 2014.' 'Non-parole period of nineteen years commencing on 22 September 1989 and expiring on 21 September 2008.' '21 September 2008 specified as the earliest day upon which the applicant will be...