Legal Research
Cases
Field v R

Field v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 105 22 May 2020

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: Field v R [2020] NSWCCA 105
Hearing dates: 1 May 2020
Decision date: 22 May 2020
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Walton J at [99];
Harrison J at [100]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – causing grievous bodily harm with an intent to cause grievous bodily harm – applicant responded to punch by stabbing victim – serious injuries suffered by victim – whether error in assessment of objective seriousness of offending – whether principle of general deterrence properly applied – whether fact that offence committed while applicant at conditional liberty was a matter of aggravation – whether sentence was manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 33(1)(b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 9, 21A(2)(j)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)(c)
Cases Cited: AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46; 198 CLR 111
Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35
Baines v R [2016] NSWCCA 132
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58
Gore v R; Hunter v R [2010] NSWCCA 330; 208
A Crim R 353
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286
Karout v R [2019] NSWCCA 253
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mulato v Regina [2006] NSWCCA
Patel v R [2019] NSWCCA 170
Regina v FD; Regina v JD [2006] NSWCCA 31; 160 A Crim R 392
R v Loveridge [2014] NSWCCA 120
R v McDonald [2019] NSWSC 858
R v Najem [2008] NSWCCA 32
R v Richards (1981) 2 NSWLR 464
R v Silva [2015] NSWSC 148
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Shaun Aaron Field – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
T Quilter – Applicant
D Patch – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2016/315219
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

1 August 2019

Before:

English DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/315219

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL: On 30 August 2018, following a three day trial, the applicant was convicted by a jury of an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
This offence has a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of 7 years.
On 1 August 2019, her Honour Judge English sitting at Campbelltown District Court, sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years commencing 18 April 2018 and expiring 17 April 2022, with a balance of term of 2 years expiring 17 April 2024.
The applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act

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 Field v R

Details

AGLC: Field v R [2020] NSWCCA 105
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 105
Decision Date: 22 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Field was the appellant, and the Crown was the respondent in this appeal against sentence. The appellant had been convicted of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, following a serious altercation with the victim. The appellant had stabbed the victim after the victim punched him. The victim suffered serious injuries. The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The appellant appealed against the severity of the sentence, arguing that the primary judge had erred in several respects, including the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending, the application of the principle of general deterrence, and the consideration of the fact that the offence was committed while the appellant was at conditional liberty. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The appeal raised several legal issues, including whether the primary judge had erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending, whether the principle of general deterrence was properly applied, whether the fact that the offence was committed while the appellant was at conditional liberty was a matter of aggravation, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the primary judge had placed too much emphasis on the nature and circumstances of the offending and had not adequately taken into account the appellant's remorse and prospects of rehabilitation. The Crown submitted that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offending.

The court found that the primary judge had not erred in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending. The court held that the primary judge had properly considered the nature and circumstances of the offending, including the appellant's response to the victim's punch, the use of a knife, and the serious injuries suffered by the victim. The court also found that the principle of general deterrence was properly applied, and that the fact that the offence was committed while the appellant was at conditional liberty was a matter of aggravation. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the primary judge had properly balanced the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and had arrived at a sentence that was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending and was not manifestly excessive. The appellant's argument that the primary judge had not adequately taken into account his remorse and prospects of rehabilitation was rejected. The court found that the primary judge had properly considered these factors and had given them the weight they deserved. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders