Legal Research
Cases
Carlton v R

Carlton v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 14 20 February 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Carlton v R [2014] NSWCCA 14
Hearing dates: 12 December 2013
Decision date: 20 February 2014
Before: Ward JA at [1]
Harrison J at [2]
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
Appeal against sentence dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence appeal - referral to the Court under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 - leave to appeal not required - extension of time not required - Muldrock error conceded - lesser individual sentences warranted but accumulation necessary - no utility in resentencing
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Cases Cited: A reference by the Attorney General for the State of New South Wales under s 77(1)(b) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 re the conviction of Frederick Lincoln McDermott [2013] NSWCCA 102; (2013) 303 ALR 143
Abdul v R [2013] NSWCCA 247
Alpha v R [2013] NSWCCA 292
Beldon v R [2012] NSWCCA 194
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
Carlton v R [2008] NSWCCA 244; (2008) 189 A Crim R 332
GAR v R (No 1) [2010] NSWCCA 163
Kearns v R [2011] NSWCCA 103
McLaren v R [2012] NSWCCA 284
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Doyle [2001] NSWCCA 252; (2001) 123 A Crim R 151
R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516; (2002) 137 A Crim R 326
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Sinkovich v Attorney General of New South Wales [2013] NSWCA 383
Yin v R [2007] NSWCCA 350
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; (2012) 223 A Crim R 460
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adam Rawdon Carlton (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr I McLachlan (Appellant)
Ms V Lydiard (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2006/7905
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2007-02-23 00:00:00

Before:

Nield DCJ

File Number(s):

06/61/0001

Judgment

WARD JA: I agree with R A Hulme J.

HARRISON J: I agree with R A Hulme J

R A HULME J: Adam Rawdon Carlton ("the appellant") was sentenced by his Honour Judge Nield in the District Court on 23 February 2007 for four offences of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent.

His Honour imposed concurrent terms of imprisonment for 13 years 4 months with non-parole periods of 8 years 6 months. The sentences were specified to commence on 21 August 2005. The appellant will become eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole periods on 20 February 2014. The total terms of the sentences will expire on 20 December 2018.

The offences are contrary to s 61J(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for…

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 Carlton v R

Details

AGLC: Carlton v R [2014] NSWCCA 14
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 14
Decision Date: 20 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carlton v R involved the appellant, Carlton, who was convicted of multiple offences and sentenced by the County Court. The appeal before the court was focused on the sentence imposed by the County Court, which the appellant sought to challenge on the basis of various legal grounds. The Court of Appeal, with its inherent jurisdiction, considered the appeal under Part 7 of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. The primary issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate, and if there was an error in the way the sentences were accumulated. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appellant was entitled to a re-sentencing due to any identified errors.

In examining the sentences, the court recognised that while the individual sentences for each offence were perhaps not excessively harsh, the cumulative effect of these sentences was disproportionate. The court noted that the Muldrock error, which involved the incorrect accumulation of sentences, warranted a correction. However, the court determined that while the individual sentences were indeed appropriate, the accumulation of these sentences resulted in an overall sentence that was excessive. The court found no utility in resentencing as the errors identified did not materially affect the overall sentence. The court concluded that the sentences, when correctly accumulated, were still appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal should be dismissed. The court held that while the individual sentences were justified, the manner in which they were accumulated led to an excessive overall sentence. However, given that the sentences were not materially affected by the identified errors, there was no need for a re-sentencing. The court's decision acknowledged the appellant's contentions but found that the sentences were still warranted in the overall context of the case. The court's final orders were to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original sentences imposed by the County Court.

Orders