Legal Research
Cases
Daniels v R

Daniels v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 35 9 March 2016

Appeal

Sentencing

Recklessly Cause Grievous Bodily Harm

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: Daniels v R [2016] NSWCCA 35
Hearing dates: 15 February 2016
Decision date: 09 March 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Fullerton J at [2]
RS Hulme AJ at [59]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal is granted.
2. The order of Lerve DCJ made on 20 November 2014 that the applicant’s parole at the expiration of the non-parole period be supervised, and that it be subject to the condition that he enter into and remain within a full-time residential rehabilitation facility until his treatment and counselling for alcohol abuse is completed, is set aside.
3. The appeal against the sentence imposed is otherwise dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence - whether sentence is manifestly excessive – recklessly cause grievous bodily harm – whether sentencing judge failed to have regard to the applicant’s background (alcohol exposure from youth) – whether sentencing judge erred in imposing a parole condition that the applicant enter into full-time rehabilitation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Hopley v R [2008] NSWCCA 105
Ingrey v R [2016] NSWCCA 31
Kentwell v R [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Kiernan v R [2016] NSWCCA 12
Lowndes v R [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665
McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94; 194 A Crim R 439
Mansour v R; Hughes v R [2013] NSWCCA 35
Moss v R [2011] NSWCCA 86
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Pattalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 171
R v Carroll [2010] NSWCCA 55; 77 NSWLR 45
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120; 243 A Crim R 31
R v Pham [2015] HCA 39
R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Webster v R [2006] NSWCCA 346
Wilson v R [2008] NSWCCA 245
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Craig Daniels (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
W Hunt (Applicant)
H Baker (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/383870
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

20 November 2014

Before:

Lerve DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/383870

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Fullerton J.
FULLERTON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by Lerve DCJ on 20 November 2014 following his plea of guilty in the Local Court to one count of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm contrary to s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
That offence attracts a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. A standard non-parole period 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 Daniels v R

Details

AGLC: Daniels v R [2016] NSWCCA 35
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 35
Decision Date: 09 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the defendant, Mr. Daniels, against a sentence imposed by the lower court. Mr. Daniels was convicted of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Mr. Daniels argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider his background, including his exposure to alcohol from a young age. Additionally, he contested the imposition of a parole condition that required him to enter full-time rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had failed to appropriately consider Mr. Daniels' background. The court also needed to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a parole condition that required the defendant to enter full-time rehabilitation. The central concern was whether these factors warranted a reconsideration of the sentence.

The court examined the sentence in light of the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for punishment and deterrence, as well as rehabilitation. It found that the sentencing judge had considered Mr. Daniels' background, including his exposure to alcohol, and had appropriately balanced these factors against the seriousness of the offence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had not erred in imposing the parole condition. The court also noted that full-time rehabilitation was a reasonable requirement given the circumstances of the offence and Mr. Daniels' history.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence and parole conditions were upheld.

Orders