REGINA v Leslie Arthur Davidson PETTY [2002] NSWSC 1220

REGINA v Leslie Arthur Davidson PETTY [2002] NSWSC 1220

The Court held that it was appropriate to specify both a term and a non-parole period. The murder was objectively very serious and aggravated by premeditation, absence of motive, callous disposal of the body and the fact that the applicant was an escapee. However, community safety concerns were not acute because the applicant was aged fifty-seven, would be over sixty before parole consideration, had serious heart and mobility problems, and his criminal history apart from the murder was not characterised by significant violence. Parity did not require the same sentence as Maiden, particularly because the applicant was older and had not accepted responsibility, but his medical condition and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under Sch 1 of the Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for Determination of a Term and Non Parole Period for an Existing Life Sentence / Re Sentencing
Outcome
Re-sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years with a non-parole period of twenty years and six months.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'life Sentence Re Determination' 'non Parole Period' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'totality' 'victim Impact Statements' 'community Safety']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['murder' 'life Sentence Re Determination' 'non Parole Period' 'parity Between Co Offenders' 'totality' 'victim Impact Statements' 'community Safety']

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

Application Under Sch 1 of the Crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for Determination of a Term and Non Parole Period for an Existing Life Sentence / Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether to specify a term and non-parole period for the applicant's existing life sentence for murder" "What sentence should be imposed having regard to the circumstances of the murder, the applicant's criminal history, custodial conduct, health, rehabilitation, community safety, parity with the co-offender and totality"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it was appropriate to specify both a term and a non-parole period. The murder was objectively very serious and aggravated by premeditation, absence of motive, callous disposal of the body and the fact that the applicant was an escapee. However, community safety concerns were not acute because the applicant was aged fifty-seven, would be over sixty before parole consideration, had serious heart and mobility problems, and his criminal history apart from the murder was not characterised by significant violence. Parity did not require the same sentence as Maiden, particularly because the applicant was older and had not accepted responsibility, but his medical condition and...

Court Disposition

Re-sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years with a non-parole period of twenty years and six months.

Orders

  • ['Leslie Davidson Petty is re-sentenced to imprisonment for twenty-five years to date from 22 September 1988.' 'That sentence will expire on 21 September 2013.' 'A non-parole period of twenty years and six months is specified.' 'The first date upon which the applicant will be eligible for consideration for release...