Beagley v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 155

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Beagley v R [2019] NSWCCA 155
Hearing dates: 8 May 2019
Decision date: 17 July 2019
Before: White JA at [1];
Harrison J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords: CRIME — appeals — appeal against sentence – firearms offences committed in 2011 – sentenced for offences related to possession of firearms in 2012 – sentenced for offences of firing of firearm with disregard for safety of others and causing grievous bodily harm offences in 2018 – no error established where submissions on sentence made in respect of delay and principle of totality – judges are not required to approach sentencing in arithmetical fashion – no error established in relation to concurrency and accumulation of offences – offences contain discrete and additional criminality compared to possession of firearm offences – sentence not manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 54, 93G(1)(c)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 7(1)
Cases Cited: Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; (2014) 246 A Crim R 528
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; 195 A Crim R 38
Sabra v R [2015] NSWCCA 38
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Cory Dean Beagley (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms J Paingakulam (Applicant)
Ms K Jeffreys (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/54821
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

25 May 2018

Before:

Jeffreys DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/54821

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
Mr Cory Dean Beagley pleaded guilty to offences of discharging a firearm with disregard for the safety of other persons (contrary to s 93G(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) and causing grievous bodily harm by an unlawful act (contrary to s 54 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)), which were offences arising out of events occurring on 28 December 2011. In May 2018, Jeffreys DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years, 3 months, which took account of a further offence of using an unauthorised prohibited firearm (contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)) contained on a Form 1 document.
Relevantly, Mr Beagley was sentenced in August 2012 for additional offences of unauthorised possession of a firearm and ammunition, and not keeping a firearm safely. There was delay until 2014 when he was charged with the offences presently the subject of appeal, and further delay leading up to sentencing in May 2018. Mr Beagley sought leave to appeal on the following grounds:
The sentencing judge failed to have proper regard to the principles relating to delay in sentencing when sentencing the applicant.
The…

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 Beagley v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Beagley v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 155
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 155
Decision Date: 17 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Beagley v The Queen, the appellant, Mr. Beagley, appealed against his sentence imposed for a series of firearms and related offences. The offences included possession of firearms, firing a firearm with disregard for the safety of others, and causing grievous bodily harm. These incidents occurred in 2011, leading to a conviction in 2012 for firearm possession and a subsequent conviction in 2018 for the more serious offences. The appeal focused on the sentence's appropriateness, particularly in light of the delay between the offences and the sentencing, as well as the principle of totality.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in his approach to sentencing, particularly regarding the delay in sentencing and the principle of totality. Additionally, the court examined whether there was any error in the judge's decision to impose concurrent and cumulative sentences for the various offences. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in his sentencing approach. It was emphasised that judges are not required to adopt an arithmetical approach when considering factors like delay and the principle of totality. The court noted that the offences in question had discrete and additional criminality compared to the mere possession of firearms, justifying separate sentencing. The judges held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not establish any error in the imposition of concurrent and cumulative sentences. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial judge's sentencing decisions.

Orders