Legal Research
Cases
Craft v R

Craft v R

Case [2021] NSWCCA 131 25 June 2021

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Mental Health

Childhood Deprivation

Criminal Law

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: Craft v R [2021] NSWCCA 131
Hearing dates: 19 May 2021
Date of orders: 25 June 2021
Decision date: 25 June 2021
Before: Garling J at [1];
Beech-Jones J at [2];
N Adams J at [3].
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to reduce moral culpability due to the applicant’s cognitive impairment and mental health condition – where sentencing judge found that there was insufficient evidence of a causal link such as to warrant a reduction in moral culpability – where the sentencing judge found special circumstances and found that the applicant’s time in custody would be more onerous due to his mental condition – where the sentencing judge found reduced moral culpability due to childhood deprivation – whether it was not open to the sentencing judge to find insufficient evidence of a causal link – where mental conditions taken into account in other ways – where mental conditions closely linked to childhood deprivation – held, no error

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 35(4), 59(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Johnston v R [2021] NSWCCA 86
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
R v O’Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Paiaka Hikurangi Craft (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Corish (Applicant)
K Jeffreys (Respondent)
Solicitors:
The Shopfront Youth Legal Centre (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/306674; 2018/254187
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

25 June 2020

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/306674; 2018/254187

Judgment

GARLING J: I agree with the orders proposed by N Adams J, and with the reasons which she gives for those orders.
BEECH-JONES J: I agree with N Adams J.
N ADAMS J: The applicant, Mr Paiaka Craft, seeks leave under s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal against the aggregate sentence imposed on him by Judge King SC on 25 June 2020.
The applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to the following offences:

Seq. 1: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment);
Seq. 3: Reckless wounding contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act (maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment, with a standard non-parole period of 3 years).

The applicant was also sentenced at that time for a breach of an 18-month Community Correction…

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 Craft v R

Details

AGLC: Craft v R [2021] NSWCCA 131
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 131
Decision Date: 25 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Craft, was convicted of a crime and was sentenced by a trial judge. Craft appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge should have reduced his moral culpability due to his cognitive impairment and mental health condition. The appellant submitted that the sentencing judge erred by finding insufficient evidence of a causal link between his mental condition and the commission of the crime. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge was correct in finding that there was insufficient evidence of a causal link between the appellant's mental condition and the commission of the crime. The court was also required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in not reducing the appellant's moral culpability due to his cognitive impairment and mental health condition. The court had to consider whether the sentencing judge was correct in finding that the appellant's mental condition would make his time in custody more onerous.

The court found that there was no error in the sentencing judge's decision. The court held that it was open to the sentencing judge to find that there was insufficient evidence of a causal link between the appellant's mental condition and the commission of the crime. The court also found that the sentencing judge had taken into account the appellant's mental condition in other ways and that his mental conditions were closely linked to his childhood deprivation, which had already been taken into account in reducing his moral culpability. The court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in any way and dismissed the appeal.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders