Legal Research
Cases
Biddle v R

Biddle v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 128 14 June 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Biddle v R [2017] NSWCCA 128
Hearing dates: 17 May 2017
Date of orders: 14 June 2017
Decision date: 14 June 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Rothman J at [114]
Price J at [126]
Decision:
(1)   Grant an extension of time for the bringing of the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
(2)   Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
(3)   Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – murder – estranged husband beat wife to death with a metal bar – sentence of imprisonment for 27 years with non-parole period of 18 years – whether sentencing judge correctly considered objective seriousness – whether applicant’s mental impairment and intellectual functioning adequately considered – whether factual findings as to causal connection between offending and mental condition open to sentencing judge – whether actions of offender facilitated the administration of justice – whether sentence manifestly excessive – no error identified – appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 3A, 21A, 22A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)(c)
Cases Cited: AB v R [2014] NSWCCA 339
Alkanaan v Regina [2017] NSWCCA 56
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Cowan v R [2015] NSWCCA 118
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Elturk v R [2014] NSWCCA 61
Goodridge v R [2014] NSWCCA 37
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Martin v R [2015] NSWCCA 6
McLaren v Regina [2012] NSWCCA 284
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Mulvihill v R [2016] NSWCCA 259
Munda v State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; 249 CLR 600
R v Archer [2015] NSWSC 1487
R v Biddle [2011] NSWSC 1262
R v O’Donohue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397
The Queen v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 91 ALJR 131
Turnbull v Chief Executive of the Office of Environment and Heritage [2015] NSWCCA 278
Vaiusu v R [2017] NSWCCA 71
Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Williams v R [2012] NSWCCA 286
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Clenton Ronald Biddle – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
I Bourke SC – Applicant
M Cinque SC – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent

File Number(s): 2009/137577
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Biddle [2011] NSWSC 1262

Date of Decision:

28 October 2011

Before:

Garling J

File Number(s):

2009/137577

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

The applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him in the Supreme Court on 28 October 2011 by Garling J.

The applicant was arraigned before a jury on 12 September 2011 and pleaded not guilty to…

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 Biddle v R

Details

AGLC: Biddle v R [2017] NSWCCA 128
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 128
Decision Date: 14 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Biddle v R was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Biddle, had been convicted of murder for beating his estranged wife to death with a metal bar. Biddle was sentenced to imprisonment for 27 years, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the offence, whether the applicant’s mental impairment and intellectual functioning were adequately considered, whether the factual findings regarding the causal connection between the offending and the applicant’s mental condition were open to the sentencing judge, whether Biddle’s actions facilitated the administration of justice, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court found no error in the sentencing judge's consideration of the objective seriousness of the crime, noting that the murder involved significant violence and was premeditated. The Court also held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered Biddle's mental impairment and intellectual functioning, and that the judge's findings regarding the causal connection between the offending and Biddle's mental condition were open to him. Furthermore, the Court determined that Biddle's actions did not facilitate the administration of justice and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the original sentence.

No further orders were made by the Court in light of its findings. The decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive assessment of both the objective seriousness of the crime and the offender's personal circumstances in sentencing, while also recognising the role of the sentencing judge in making factual determinations.

Orders