Carr v R - [2014] NSWCCA 202

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Carr v R [2014] NSWCCA 202
Hearing dates: 17/09/2014
Decision date: 01 October 2014
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Fullerton J at [2];
Adamson J at [50]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - knowingly making an improvised explosive device with intent to injure - whether sentence was manifestly excessive - whether sentencing judge erred in finding that the applicant's motive increased the objective seriousness of the offending
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 55(a)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A(2)(j)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(3)
Cases Cited: Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246
Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321; 115 A Crim R 558
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520; 204 A Crim R 434
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120; 212 A Crim R 254
Quealey v R [2010] NSWCCA 116
R v Bonnet [2013] NSWCCA 234
R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296; 177 A Crim R 94
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Glenn Ronald Carr (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation: R Burgess (Applicant)
J Girdham SC (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2012/394790
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2013-11-20 00:00:00

Before:

Hanley DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/394790

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Fullerton J.

FULLERTON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court on 20 November 2013 after entering a plea of guilty in the Local Court to knowingly making an improvised explosive device, particularised in the charge as a "parcel bomb", with intent to injure contrary to s 55(a) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW). That offence attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. There is no applicable standard non-parole period.

After applying a discount of 25 per cent for the early plea of guilty, the applicant was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years.

The applicant relies upon two grounds of appeal:

Ground 1: His Honour erred in finding that the applicant's motive increased the objective seriousness of the offending.

Ground 2: The sentence was manifestly excessive.

Proceedings and remarks on sentence

A statement of facts was tendered by consent. They were succinctly summarised in the sentencing reasons.

On 18 September 2012 the victim, Michael Langley, and his partner, Lee Brindle, resided with Ms Brindle's young daughter in Ashcroft. At around 10.30am, Rosa Langley, the victim's aunt, arrived with a parcel addressed to Mr Langley which had been delivered to her home in Lurnea where the victim had lived from time to time for many years.

Mr Langley's aunt told him that she thought that whatever was inside the parcel must be broken because it was…

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 Carr v R

Details

AGLC: Carr v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 202
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 202
Decision Date: 01 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Carr v R involved an appeal by the applicant against his sentence for the offence of knowingly making an improvised explosive device with intent to injure. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in this appeal was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the sentencing judge had erred in determining that the applicant's motive increased the objective seriousness of the offence.

The court considered the relevant principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the objective seriousness of the offence and the principle that a sentence should not be manifestly excessive. It was necessary to determine if the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various factors, including the motive behind the offence, in arriving at the sentence. The court noted that the applicant's motive, which involved a desire to cause harm, was a relevant factor in assessing the objective seriousness of the offending. The court examined whether the sentencing judge had correctly taken this into account and whether this consideration had led to an appropriate sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the motive and its impact on the objective seriousness of the offence. The court concluded that the sentencing judge's approach was reasonable and that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence committed. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Orders