Legal Research
Cases
Blackstock v R

Blackstock v R

Case [2013] NSWCCA 172 23 July 2013

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Blackstock v Regina

Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCCA 172

Hearing Date(s): 30/04/13

Decision Date: 23 July 2013

Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Campbell J at [2]
Barr AJ at [70]

Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal;
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Attorney Generals Reference (No. 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868; 1 QB 73
Jaturawong v. Regina [2011] NSWCCA 168
Phelan v R (1993) 66 A Crim R 446
Question of Law Reserved (No. 2 of 1996) (1996) 67 SASR 63; 88 A Crim R 417
R v Bembridge (1783) 3 Dougl 327
R v El-Rashid (NSWCCA, unreported 7th April 1995; BC9504681)
R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
R v Hokin, Burton and Peisley (1922) 22 SR (NSW) 280
R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450; 151 A Crim R 376
R. v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
R. v. Quach [2010] VSCA 106; 27 VR 310
Shum Kwok Sher v HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 381
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Allen Michael Blackstock (applicant)
Crown (respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
G Porter (applicant)
N Bruni (respondent)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Adams & Partners (applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2011/96482

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Judge Woods QC

- Date of Decision: 24 February 2012

- Court File Number(s): 2011/96482

JUDGMENT

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Campbell J.
CAMPBELL J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court of New South Wales at Sydney on 24th February 2012 by his Honour Judge Woods QC. The applicant had pleaded guilty in the Local Court, at the first available opportunity on 23rd August 2011, to the common law offence of misconduct in public office.
The sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years commencing on 24th August 2012 and expiring on 23rd August 2015, and an additional term of one year commencing on 24th August 2015 and expiring on 23rd August 2016.
The offence was one of nine charges to which the applicant had admitted his guilt. Of the other eight, three were making a false statement to obtain money contrary to s.178BB Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ("Crimes Act"), with an additional three such offences taken into account on a Form 1; the other two were one charge of giving false evidence at a public inquiry before the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), and one additional count of the same nature taken into account on a Form 1. The applicant pleaded guilty to each principal offence.
The total effective sentence was one of imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months commencing on 24th February 2012 and expiring on 23rd…

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 Blackstock v R

Details

AGLC: Blackstock v R [2013] NSWCCA 172
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 172
Decision Date: 23 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Blackstock v R, the appellant, Mr. Blackstock, was convicted of a serious criminal offence and subsequently sentenced by the trial court. He now appeals against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in imposing a sentence that the appellant contends is grossly disproportionate to the crime committed.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the appropriate sentence for the offence. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the principles governing sentencing in criminal cases. This involved a review of the severity of the sentence relative to the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the case, and the need for deterrence and retribution, balanced against the appellant's personal circumstances and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal examined the sentencing principles and considered whether the trial judge had appropriately balanced the various factors in determining the sentence. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the gravity of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the need to protect the community. The appellate court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and therefore dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the original sentence imposed by the trial court was upheld.

Orders