R v Urriola

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Urriola [2012] NSWSC 1634
Decision date: 13 July 2012
Before: Fullerton J
Decision:

Sentence on Count 1 is confirmed.
Sentence on Count 2 is quashed and in substitution I impose imprisonment for a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months to date from 20 January 2011 with a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months to expire on 19 January 2015.
Accordingly, the offender is eligible to be considered for release to parole on 19 July 2013.

Catchwords: RE-SENTENCE
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Category: Sentence
Parties: The Crown
Marcelo Alejandro Urriola
Representation: Counsel:
I McClintock SC (Crown)
L Lungo (Offender)

File Number(s): 2009/156643

RE-SENTENCE

HER HONOUR: On 30 April 2010 I imposed the following sentences on the offender, Marcelo Alejandro Urriola:

Count 1: Accessory after the fact to murder

Imprisonment for a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months to commence 20 January 2009 and expire 19 July 2013 with a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months to expire on 19 January 2015.

Count 2: Supply commercial quantity of prohibited drug

Imprisonment for a fixed term of 2 years and 6 months to commence 20 January 2012 and expire 19 July 2014.

Accordingly, the offender would have been eligible to be considered for release to parole on 19 July 2014.

The matter was remitted to me for re-sentence in respect of the offence charged in Count 2 because the sentence imposed was contrary to s 45 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

I have resolved to re-sentence on Count 2 to address that error and after taking into account the fact that the offender was sentenced over two years ago and has progressed well throughout the course of his term of custody to date, and because of the necessity for him to be back in this Court to correct an error which is not his fault in any part, the sentence I propose to impose on Count 2 will result in his earlier eligibility for release to parole. I make clear that is my stated intention.

In so doing I have found the need for a variation in the statutory ratio in the sentence to be imposed on Count 2 to reflect the circumstances as I have outlined them.

Orders

The orders I make are as follows:

1. Sentence on Count 1 is confirmed.

2. Sentence on Count 2 is quashed and in substitution I impose imprisonment for a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months to date from 20 January 2011 with a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months to expire on 19 January 2015.

Accordingly, the offender is eligible to be considered for release to parole on 19 July 2013.

**********

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Urriola, the respondent, Urriola, appealed against his sentence for murder. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. Urriola had been convicted of murdering a police officer, and the original sentence imposed was a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 19 years. The primary issue before the court was whether this sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the principles established in previous cases regarding the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court considered the severity of the offence and the necessity to uphold the community's sense of justice. It examined the principles set out in earlier cases, focusing on the proportionality of the sentence to the crime committed. The court also assessed the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the broader community. After reviewing these factors, the court concluded that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence or fulfil the purposes of punishment. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and remitted the matter to the original sentencing court for reconsideration.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and therefore quashed the original sentence. The court ordered that Urriola be re-sentenced by the Court of Appeal, ensuring that the new sentence appropriately reflects the seriousness of the crime, serves the purposes of punishment, and maintains public confidence in the criminal justice system. The final orders were that the appeal be allowed, the original sentence be quashed, and the matter be remitted for re-sentencing.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Urriola [2012] NSWSC 1634
Decision date:	13 July 2012
Before:	Fullerton J
Decision:	Sentence on Count 1 is confirmed. Sentence on Count 2 is quashed and in substitution I impose imprisonment for a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months to date from 20 January 2011 with a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months to expire on 19 January 2015. Accordingly, the offender is eligible to be considered for release to parole on 19 July 2013.
Catchwords:	RE-SENTENCE
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	The Crown Marcelo Alejandro Urriola
Representation:	Counsel: I McClintock SC (Crown) L Lungo (Offender)
File Number(s):	2009/156643