Legal Research
Cases
Greenwood v R

Greenwood v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 64 23 April 2014

Sexual Assault

Sentence Appeal

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Greenwood v Regina [2014] NSWCCA 64
Hearing dates: 03/04/2014
Decision date: 23 April 2014
Before: Chief Justice Bathurst at [1]
Hoeben CJ at CL at [2]
Adams J at [41]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence appeal - sexual intercourse without consent - young woman passed out after consuming an excess of alcohol - offender committed offence while victim unconscious - whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900, s61I, s61L
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s5(1)(c)
Cases Cited: Adam Jolly v R [2013] NSWCCA 76
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Doe v R [2013] NSW 248
Einfeld v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 87; 200 A Crim R 1
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
R v Hibberd [2009] NSWCCA 20; 194 A Crim R 1
RO v R [2013] NSWCCA 162
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Grant Greenwood - Applicant
Regina - Respondent Crown
Representation: Counsel:
Mr G James QC/Mr P Lange - Applicant
Mr R Herps - Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Murphy's Lawyers Inc - Applicant
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2011/51225
Decision under appeal

Citation:

R v Goodridge [2012] NSWSC 378
R v Goodridge (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1180

Date of Decision:

2013-01-25 00:00:00

Before:

Colefax SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/51225

Judgment

CHIEF JUSTICE BATHURST: I agree with Hoeben CJ at CL.

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offences and Sentence

After a judge alone trial before Colefax SC DCJ, the applicant was convicted of two offences:

(i) Sexual intercourse without consent pursuant to s61I Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years and a standard non-parole period of 7 years.

(ii) Indecent assault pursuant to s61L Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years.

His Honour sentenced the applicant as follows:

Sexual intercourse without consent - imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months, commencing 10 September 2012 and expiring 9 January 2016, with a balance of term of 1 year and 2 months, expiring 9 March 2017.

Indecent assault - a fixed term of imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentence for the first offence.

The overall sentence was imprisonment for 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years and 4 months. Pursuant to s5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 the applicant seeks leave to appeal from that sentence on the following ground:

The sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

Factual background

As at 12 February 2011 the victim was 18 years old and living with her godmother, Margaret Doherty, at Camden. At that time, although the applicant was married, he was no longer living with his wife. He was in a close personal relationship with Ms Doherty and was aged 36.

On 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 Greenwood v R

Details

AGLC: Greenwood v R [2014] NSWCCA 64
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 64
Decision Date: 23 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Greenwood v R, the appellant, Greenwood, sought an appeal against his sentence following his conviction for sexual intercourse without consent. The victim, a young woman, was rendered unconscious after consuming a significant amount of alcohol. Greenwood proceeded to commit the offence while the victim was in this incapacitated state. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Greenwood for the offence of sexual intercourse without consent was manifestly excessive. The appeal hinged on the court's assessment of the severity of the crime, the culpability of the offender, and the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the gravity of the offence. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence was disproportionate in light of relevant sentencing principles and precedents.

The High Court, in delivering its judgment, examined the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence, and the offender's culpability. The court found that the crime was indeed grave, as it involved a serious breach of personal autonomy and dignity. However, the court also considered the offender's background, his remorse, and the mitigating factors presented. After thorough deliberation, the court concluded that the sentence imposed by the lower court was not manifestly excessive. The reasoning was that while the crime was serious, the sentence reflected the appropriate balance between punishment and deterrence, and was proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the sentence imposed by the lower court. This decision reaffirmed the importance of considering both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders