Australia, May 4 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on April 3:

1. On 9 February 2023, Luke Samouel Simon, the offender, shot and killed Damien Conlon. Mr Conlon was the beloved and cherished partner of the offender's daughter, Linda Simon. Two days earlier, on 7 February 2023, the offender had gone to his gun safe, removed a pistol, and said words to himself that were captured by CCTV including "that's the one that is going to put him to sleep", and "fucking Damien, you're fucking gone". At the time of the final, fatal, shot on 9 February 2023, the offender stated, "bye bye Damien".

2. The offender admitted to the shooting immediately after it occurred. On 12 June 2024, he pleaded guilty to one count of murder at the Bathurst Local Court and was committed for sentence to this Court. The sentence hearing for the offender was conducted over three part-days: 7 November 2024, 19 November 2024 and 24 February 2025.

3. It is now my task to sentence the offender. The circumstances of this case are particularly unusual and shocking. Linda Simon has been left without her partner due to the actions of her own father. The cataclysmic effect of this murder on Linda Simon and her remaining family will be discussed later in my remarks. First, I must set out the applicable sentencing principles, and then turn to the events of 9 February 2023, the circumstances leading up to those events, and the personal circumstances of the offender.

General sentencing principles

4. Where, as here, on a plea of guilty, an agreed statement of facts is relied upon, the sentencing judge is not precluded from seeking further material if the judge comes to the view that the document is inadequate for the sentencing exercise. This is because the judge's sentencing discretion must be exercised in the public interest: R v Uzabeaga [2000] NSWCCA 381 per Bell J at [34] (Simpson and Dowd JJ agreeing); Nguyen v R [2015] NSWCCA 268 at [45] per Price J (Hoeben CJ at CL and Button J agreeing). In making any findings of fact, those facts must be consistent with the plea of guilty. If I make a finding of fact adverse to the offender, I must be satisfied of that fact beyond reasonable doubt. If I make a finding of fact favourable to the offender, I must be satisfied of that fact on the balance of probabilities: The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54 at [27].

5. In sentencing the offender, I must apply the purposes of sentencing established at common law and as set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ("Sentencing Act").

6. The conduct must be denounced, and the offender must be held to account and punished appropriately. The Court must recognise the harm done to the victims and to the community. The sentence must deter the offender, as well as others, from engaging in this type of conduct. The protection of the community is also an important consideration. Further, it is important, both for the offender and the community, that the sentence should promote his rehabilitation to the extent it is appropriate. As for all sentencing exercises, some of the factors pull in different directions.

7. The offence of murder carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment (Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 19A). A life sentence must be imposed if the level of culpability involved in the commission of the offence was so extreme that the community interest in retribution, punishment, community protection and deterrence can only be met through the imposition of that sentence (Sentencing Act, s 61(1)). In this case, the Crown Prosecutor submitted that a life sentence should be imposed. This was opposed by counsel for the offender. I will consider this important matter in detail later in my remarks.

8. A standard non-parole period of 20 years for the offence of murder has been specified by the legislature (Sentencing Act, s 54A).

9. The maximum penalty and the standard non-parole period are both important statutory guideposts which need to be kept in mind when I consider all of the factors relevant to the sentencing task, assess their significance, and then determine the appropriate sentence: Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 at [26]-[27]; Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [51].

10. Murder involves the taking of human life. Any sentence must reflect the profound seriousness of this offence in light of the maximum penalty of life imprisonment which has been prescribed by our parliament on behalf of our community. In this case, the life of Damien Conlon was taken. The value the community places upon the preservation of human life is reflected by the need to have the conduct denounced by a sentence appropriate to the circumstances of the case and the particular circumstances of the offender.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/195f55124d1d142de402ad3f)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.