Legal Research
Cases
Harris v The King

Harris v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 174 12 July 2023

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: Harris v R [2023] NSWCCA 174
Hearing dates: 01 March 2023
Date of orders: 12 July 2023
Decision date: 12 July 2023
Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1];
Davies J at [2];
McNaughton J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal – appeal against sentence – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – armed robbery with an offensive weapon – tomahawk and petrol – offending occurred at RSL Club in small country town – sentence imposed not unreasonable or plainly unjust – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Chartres-Abbott v R [2021] NSWCCA 239
Dang v R [2014] NSWCCA 47
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa
Foaiaulima v R [2020] NSWCCA 270
Gore v R; Hunter v R [2010] NSWCCA 330; (2010) 208 A Crim R 353
Hall v R [2021] NSWCCA 220
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
McLaughlin v R [2013] NSWCCA 152
MLP v R [2014] NSWCCA 183
Naveed v R [2019] NSWCCA 149
Ngatamariki v R [2016] NSWCCA 155
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
Pham v R [2014] NSWCCA 115
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
Sabbah v R (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA 89
Turnbull v R [2019] NSWCCA 97
Vandeventer v R [2013] NSWCCA 33
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Timothy Harris (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
I McLachlan (Applicant)
S Lind (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/67044
Publication restriction: A pseudonym order has been made to protect the identity of a child.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

10 September 2021

Before:

Turnbull SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/67044

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 8 March 2021, Timothy Harris (“the applicant”) was convicted of one count of armed robbery with an offensive weapon (contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)).

The robbery had taken place in the Molong RSL Club on a Sunday afternoon with staff and patrons present. The applicant was armed with a tomahawk axe and a bottle filled with petrol. The applicant squirted petrol into a patron’s face and made threats of further violence to staff and other patrons.

On 10 September 2021, Judge Turnbull SC (“the sentencing judge”) sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment of 9 years and 6 months with…

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 Harris v The King

Details

AGLC: Harris v The King [2023] NSWCCA 174
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 174
Decision Date: 12 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the matter of Harris v The King was heard. The appellant, Harris, was convicted of armed robbery with an offensive weapon, namely a tomahawk and petrol, during an incident at an RSL Club in a small country town. Harris appealed against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate criteria for determining whether a sentence was manifestly excessive and the factors the trial judge should have considered in imposing the sentence.

The court considered the principles governing the assessment of sentence severity. It was established that a sentence could only be deemed manifestly excessive if it exceeded the outer limits of sentences that could be reasonably imposed for the crime. The court examined whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, Harris's criminal history, and any mitigating factors. The court found that the trial judge had comprehensively assessed these factors and concluded that the sentence imposed was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust. The appellate court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence but also recognised the importance of the trial judge's discretion in sentencing.

The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the trial court. The court emphasised the importance of deference to the trial judge's assessment of the circumstances and the appropriate punishment for the crime committed. The judgment underscored the principle that appellate courts should intervene only in cases where the sentence is palpably outside the range of acceptable outcomes.

Orders