R A Hulme J at [1] Hamill J at [2] Wilson J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal on ground one refused. (2) Leave to appeal on ground two granted. (3) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – assessment of objective gravity – whether error in “global assessment” – question of whether assessment must be expressed by position in a range – requirement of identifying features relevant to assessment of objective gravity – question of whether sentence manifestly excessive – utility of sentencing statistics in determining whether a sentence is manifestly excessive – utility of comparing one case to another to discern error
Counsel: S Healy (Applicant) G Newton (Respondent)
Solicitors: Ryan & Payten (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):
2017/00161856
Publication restriction:
Nil
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Common Law
Date of Decision:
17 August 2018
Before:
O’Rourke SC DCJ
File Number(s):
2017/00161856
Judgment
R A HULME J: I agree with Wilson J.
HAMILL J: I agree with the orders proposed by Wilson J and with her Honour’s reasons. Judge O’Rourke SC’s explanation of the approach she took to an assessment of the objective gravity of the offending was orthodox and in accordance with the High Court’s judgment in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39. The sentence imposed on the applicant was very severe particularly when appropriate weight is given to his pleas of guilty and lack of any relevant criminal history. However, the…
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 FL v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
FL v R [2020] NSWCCA 114
Case
[2020] NSWCCA 114
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of FL v R involved an appeal against the sentence imposed by a lower court. The appellant, FL, contested the sentence on the grounds of its severity, arguing that the sentencing judge had made an error in the "global assessment" of the objective gravity of the offence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the lower court had erred in its assessment and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in the global assessment of the objective gravity of the offence. This involved determining whether the assessment must be expressed by a position within a range and whether the sentencing judge had properly identified the features relevant to the assessment. Another issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the use of sentencing statistics and comparisons to other cases could assist in discerning any error.
The court concluded that the sentencing judge had not erred in the global assessment of the objective gravity of the offence. The judge had properly identified the relevant features and provided a reasoned explanation for the sentence imposed. The court further held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. While sentencing statistics and comparisons to other cases might be useful in some contexts, they were not determinative of whether a sentence was excessive. The court emphasised the importance of a principled approach to sentencing, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case.
As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The High Court's ruling reinforced the importance of a reasoned and principled approach to sentencing, while also acknowledging the role of judicial discretion in determining an appropriate sentence.