Legal Research
Cases
Canzius v The Queen

Canzius v The Queen

Case [2017] NSWCCA 177 26 July 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Canzius v R [2017] NSWCCA 177
Hearing dates: 14 July 2017
Decision date: 26 July 2017
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Harrison J at [79]
Fullerton J at [80]
Decision:
(1)   Refuse leave to appeal against sentence with respect to proposed grounds 5 and 6.

(2)   Grant leave to appeal against sentence with respect to grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7.
(3)   Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – where late plea of guilty to offence of reckless wounding contrary to s 35(4), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – where sentence of 2 years, 8 months with non-parole period of 1 year, 4 months – whether judge erred by circumscribing his discretion in relation to length of sentence – whether judge gave primary or determinative significance to standard non parole period of three years – whether judge erred in placing emphasis on specific and general deterrence – whether judge failed to take into account applicant’s mental health issues – whether the possibility of summary disposal should have been taken into account by the judge in mitigation of penalty – whether sentence manifestly excessive.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 35(4)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 9, 12, 54A, 54B
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 258(a), 267(2), Sch 1
Cases Cited: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Couloumbis v R [2012] NSWCCA 264
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Di La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Douar v R [2005] NSWCCA 445
Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Papworth v R [2011] NSWCCA 253
R v Doan [2000] NSWCCA 317
R v JCE (2000) 120 A Crim R 18; [2000] NSWCCA 498
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Wong v R; Leung v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44
Category: Sentence
Parties: Raymond Anthony Canzius (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
M Ramage QC (Applicant)
S Hughes (Respondent Crown)
Solicitors:
Jeffreys Lawyers (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/259737
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

28 July 2016

Before:

Haesler SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/259737

Judgment

GLEESON JA: The applicant, Raymond Anthony Canzius, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by the District Court on 28 July 2016, following his plea of guilty to the offence of reckless wounding. That offence carries a maximum penalty of…

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 Canzius v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Canzius v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 177
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 177
Decision Date: 26 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Canzius v The Queen, the applicant was convicted of reckless wounding, contrary to section 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He entered a late plea of guilty and was sentenced to 2 years and 8 months in prison, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in various respects, including circumscribing his discretion in relation to the length of the sentence, giving determinative significance to the standard non-parole period, placing emphasis on specific and general deterrence, failing to consider his mental health issues, and not taking into account the possibility of summary disposal in mitigation of penalty. The application was ultimately dismissed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in any way in determining the applicant's sentence. This involved examining the extent to which the judge had exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence, whether he had given undue weight to certain factors, and whether he had failed to take into account relevant mitigating factors. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the role of deterrence and the need to individualise sentences to the circumstances of the offender.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in any of the respects argued by the applicant. It held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence and that the judge had properly exercised his discretion in determining the length of the sentence. The court noted that the judge had considered the applicant's mental health issues and had not given determinative significance to the standard non-parole period. It also held that the emphasis placed on deterrence was not excessive and that the possibility of summary disposal had been taken into account in the overall sentencing process. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

No orders were made as the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders