Legal Research
Cases
Bullock v R

Bullock v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 131 4 July 2016

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

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: Bullock v R [2016] NSWCCA 131
Hearing dates: 6 June 2016
Date of orders: 04 July 2016
Decision date: 04 July 2016
Before: Basten JA at [1]
Rothman J at [10]
Fagan J at [92]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted;

(2) Appeal allowed;

(3) Sentence imposed on Justin Bullock on 17 April 2015 be quashed and, in lieu thereof, for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the Applicant, Justin Bullock, be sentenced to a non-parole period of two (2) years and six (6) months commencing 17 April 2015 and concluding 16 October 2017 with a remainder of term of two (2) years and six (6) months concluding 16 April 2020.
(4) The Applicant is first eligible for release on parole on 16 October 2017.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – sentence – manifest excess – youth of 18 – insufficient regard to effect on general deterrence – appeal granted.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Wong & Leung v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 195 CLR 665
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 252 CLR 601
R v AEM Snr & Ors [2002] NSWCCA 58
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Green & Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213
McCartney v R [2009] NSWCCA 244
Badans v R [2012] NSWCCA 97
Stewart v R [2012] NSWCCA 123
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Justin Bullock (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Johnson (Applicant)
H Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/163710
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

17 April 2015

Before:

Woods DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/16371

Judgment

BASTEN JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Rothman J and with his reasons. I also agree with the reasons of Fagan J.
The applicant complained that the sentencing judge failed to make a finding as to the objective gravity of the offending. That was not required. What was required was a careful assessment of the nature of the offending conduct; that exercise was properly undertaken by the sentencing judge.
Although the offence under s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carries a standard non-parole period (7 years) and that period is identified as representing the non-parole period for an offence “in the middle of the range of objective seriousness” for such an offence,[1] it was common ground that the judge was entitled to depart from…

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 Bullock v R

Details

AGLC: Bullock v R [2016] NSWCCA 131
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 131
Decision Date: 04 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bullock v R was a case heard by the High Court of Australia, which dealt with an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed on the appellant. The appellant, who was 18 years old at the time of the offence, was convicted of a serious crime and received a lengthy prison sentence. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly considering the appellant's age and the potential impact on general deterrence. The court examined whether the trial judge had sufficiently considered these factors and whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

The High Court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the requirement that sentences be proportionate to the crime and the circumstances of the offender. The court noted that the trial judge had imposed a lengthy sentence, which, while within the statutory maximum, was still significant due to the appellant's youth. The court found that the trial judge had not given sufficient consideration to the appellant's age and the potential impact of the sentence on general deterrence. The court emphasised that while the appellant's crime was serious, the youth of the offender and the need to maintain a balance between punishment and deterrence should have been more prominently factored into the sentencing decision.

Consequently, the High Court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court granted the appeal and ordered that a new sentencing hearing be conducted, directing the trial judge to consider the appellant's age and the principles of general deterrence more thoroughly. The court did not specify a particular sentence but highlighted the need for a more balanced approach in future sentencing proceedings.

Orders