Legal Research
Cases
Cramp v The Queen

Cramp v The Queen

Case [2016] NSWCCA 305 16 December 2016

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: Cramp v R [2016] NSWCCA 305
Hearing dates: 12 October 2016
Date of orders: 16 December 2016
Decision date: 16 December 2016
Before: Gleeson JA
Fagan J
N Adams J
Decision:
The orders of the Court are:

1. Leave to appeal is granted.

2. The sentence imposed on the applicant by M Adams J on 19 March 2015 is set aside.

3. In lieu thereof, for the murder of Lance Hargreaves on 21 February 2013 at St Marys, Gordon Reginald Cramp is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 25 years and 6 months commencing on 2 March 2013 and expiring on 1 September 2038 and a balance of term of 8 years and 6 months commencing on 2 September 2038 and expiring on 1 March 2047.
4. The applicant will be eligible for release on parole on the expiry of the non-parole period fixed under order (3).
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – murder – motive – dangerousness – whether sentencing judge erred by considering applicant’s dangerousness increased by inability to identify motive – whether inability to identify motive aggravated sentence imposed – purposes of sentencing
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – murder – whether manifest excess – not in worst category – aggravating factors – comparative cases
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447; [1987] HCA 46
Louizos v R; R v Louizos [2009] NSWCCA 71; (2009) 194 A Crim R 223
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Mulato v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 282
Purtill v R [2016] NSWCCA 80
Regina v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
R v Gordon Reginald Cramp [2015] NSWSC 271
R v Kelsall [2015] NSWSC 480
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566; [2006] NSWCCA 242
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gordon Reginald Cramp (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Gartelmann SC (Applicant)
B Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
S Joyner (Applicant)
C Hyland (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/56223
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court

Jurisdiction:

Common Law Division

Citation:

[2015] NSWSC 271

Date of Decision:

19 March 2014

Before:

M Adams J

File Number(s):

2013/56223

Judgment

THE COURT: On 29 October 2014 the applicant, Gordon Reginald Cramp, was found guilty by a jury of the murder of Lance Hargeaves at St Marys on 21 February 2013. He was sentenced by M Adams J…

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 Cramp v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cramp v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 305
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 305
Decision Date: 16 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cramp v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant for the crime of murder. The applicant had been convicted of murdering a woman and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed the sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge had erred in considering his dangerousness to be increased by his inability to identify a motive for the murder. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the sentencing judge had erred by considering the applicant’s dangerousness to be increased by his inability to identify a motive for the murder. The applicant argued that his inability to identify a motive should not have been considered as an aggravating factor in his sentencing. The applicant also argued that the sentence imposed was a manifest excess, and that it was not in the worst category of cases. The High Court was required to consider whether the inability to identify a motive for the crime of murder could be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

In its decision, the High Court held that the inability to identify a motive for a crime of violence could be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing. The Court held that the inability to identify a motive could be indicative of the dangerousness of the offender, and that this could be taken into account when determining the appropriate sentence. The Court also held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that it was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The Court rejected the applicant’s argument that the inability to identify a motive should not have been considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing, and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against sentence, and upheld the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the applicant for the crime of murder. The Court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in considering the applicant’s inability to identify a motive as an aggravating factor in sentencing, and that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The Court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and that it was not in the worst category of cases.

Orders