Legal Research
Cases
Adanguidi v R

Adanguidi v R

Case [2006] NSWCCA 404 15 December 2006

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
167 A Crim R 295

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Adanguidi v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 404

HEARING DATE(S): 3 November 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Sully J at 2; Hislop J at 3

DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal granted; (2) Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentencing - Murder - Three life sentences - Culpability - Standard of proof - Mental illness - Fresh evidence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 19A, 23A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 21, 21A, 61
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 6(3)

CASES CITED: Aslett v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 360
Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
Markarian v R (2005) 215 ALR 213
R v Arthurell (Supreme Court of New South Wales unreported 3 October 1997)
R v Ashton (2002) 137 A Crim R 73
R v Baker (NSWCCA 20 September 1995 unreported)
R v Eliasen (1991) 53 A Crim R 391
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Fordham (1997) 98 A Crim R 359
R v Harris [2000] 50 NSWLR 409
R v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374
R v Leonard (NSWCCA Unreported 7 December 1998)
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Merritt (2004) 59 NSWLR 557
R v Munday (1981) 2 NSWLR 177
R v Mungomery (2004) 151 A Crim R 376
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Olenik [2002] NSWCCA 90
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v SLD [2003] 58 NSWLR 589
R v Stanbouli (2003) 141 A Crim R 531
R v Street (NSWCCA 17 December 1996 unreported)
R v Twala (NSWCCA unreported 4 November 1994)
R v Villa (NSWCCA unreported 13 April 2005)
Ramsay v Watson (1961) 108 CLR 642
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1987) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES: Applicant - Crespin Adanguidi
Respondent - Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/868

COUNSEL: Applicant - Mr P. Strickland SC
Respondent - Mr G. Smith SC

SOLICITORS: Applicant - Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales
Respondent - Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2003/163

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Barr J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 3 June 2005

- 1 -

2006/868

SPIGELMAN CJ
SULLY J
HISLOP J

15 December 2006

Crespin ADANGUIDI v REGINA

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Hislop J.

2 SULLY J: I agree with Hislop J.

HISLOP J:

3 On 14 April 2005 a Supreme Court jury found the applicant guilty of the murder, on 1 February 2003, of Shiquin Zhu, Pin Shen and Christie Bo Shen.

4 On 3 June 2005 Barr J sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment for each murder. The sentences commenced on 1 February 2003.

5 The applicant has sought leave to appeal against the sentences. The amended grounds of appeal are:

(1) His Honour erred in finding that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Adanguidi v R

Details

AGLC: Adanguidi v R [2006] NSWCCA 404
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 404
Decision Date: 15 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant was convicted of three counts of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 28 years for each count. The defendant appealed the sentence on the grounds of excessiveness and that the trial judge did not properly consider his mental illness and mitigating factors. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was excessive and whether the trial judge failed to properly consider the defendant's mental illness and mitigating factors. The court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, the standard of proof required for fresh evidence, and the relevance of mental illness to sentencing. The court also examined the trial judge's consideration of the defendant's mental illness and mitigating factors.

The court found that the sentence was not excessive and that the trial judge had properly considered the defendant's mental illness and mitigating factors. The court held that the standard of proof for fresh evidence is high and that the evidence presented was not sufficient to meet this standard. The court also held that the defendant's mental illness did not mitigate his culpability for the crimes committed. The appeal was dismissed.

No additional orders were made.

Orders