Legal Research
Cases
Jackson v R

Jackson v R

Case [2021] NSWCCA 15 17 February 2021

Sentencing

Criminal Liability

Limitation Periods

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Appeal

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: Jackson v R [2021] NSWCCA 15
Hearing dates: 16 November 2020
Date of orders: 17 February 2021
Decision date: 17 February 2021
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Price J at [2];
Fagan J at [139]
Decision:
(1) Leave to Appeal granted.
(2) Appeal dismissed

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – domestic violence offences – whether House error in judge’s consideration of evidence of the applicant’s mental health – differences in applicant’s case before the judge and on appeal – repeat domestic violence offender – importance of specific and general deterrence emphasised – whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive – whether indicative sentence for the count of choking contrary to s 37(1) Crimes Act was manifestly excessive – whether judge took into account delay – late guilty plea – further adjournments at request of applicant’s lawyer – whether non-parole period manifestly excessive after finding of special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 37(1), 59(1), 61
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 14(1)

Cases Cited:
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2; 236 A Crim R 116
Bland v R [2014] NSWCCA 82; 241 A Crim R 51
Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150
Egan v R [2017] NSWCCA 206
Elsaj v R [2017] NSWCCA 124
Griffin v R [2018] NSWCCA 259
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45; 204 A Crim R 434
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
JMv R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528
Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
Pym v R [2014] NSWCCA 182
R v Cutrale [2011] NSWCCA 214
R v Hamid [2006] NSWCCA 302; 164 A Crim R 179
R v Hollaway [2016] NSWCCA 116
R v O’Connor [2014] NSWCCA 53; 239 A Crim R 487
R v Simpson (1992) 61 A Crim R 58
R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
Sumptom v R [2016] NSWCCA 162
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; 223 A Crim R 460

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jackson (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Rodger (Applicant)
K Jeffreys (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Streeton Lawyers (Applicant)
Solicitor for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/189227
Publication restriction: Nil.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

24 October 2019

Before:

Noman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/189227

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with the judgment of Price J and the orders which he proposes.
PRICE J: Wayne Jackson (“the applicant”) seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him…

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 Jackson v R

Details

AGLC: Jackson v R [2021] NSWCCA 15
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 15
Decision Date: 17 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the applicant against his sentence for domestic violence offences. The applicant had been found guilty of charges including assault occasioning actual bodily harm, choking, and causing actual bodily harm with intent. The appeal focused on the sentence imposed by the trial judge, including whether the House had erred in the trial judge’s consideration of the applicant’s mental health evidence and the aggregate sentence. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the non-parole period was excessive given the special circumstances.

The legal issues for the court included whether the trial judge had erred in considering the applicant’s mental health evidence, whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the non-parole period was excessive after finding special circumstances. The court considered whether the trial judge had adequately taken into account the delay in the applicant’s guilty plea and the impact of further adjournments requested by the applicant’s lawyer. The court also examined whether the sentence for the choking offence contravened the statutory requirement to impose an indicative sentence under section 37(1) of the Crimes Act.

The court determined that the trial judge did not err in the way the mental health evidence was considered. It found that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant’s history of domestic violence and the importance of deterrence. The court also held that the indicative sentence for the choking offence was not manifestly excessive, and the trial judge had appropriately considered the delay and further adjournments. The non-parole period was deemed appropriate given the special circumstances found by the trial judge.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against sentence. The court confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, including the non-parole period, was appropriate and did not require alteration. The court emphasised the need for specific and general deterrence in cases of domestic violence and found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences committed.

Orders