Legal Research
Cases
Jackson v The King

Jackson v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 121 29 May 2023

Appeal

Sentencing

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 [2023] NSWCCA 121
Hearing dates: 1 May 2023
Decision date: 29 May 2023
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Rothman J at [3];
McNaughton J at [75]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal granted;
(2)   Appeal allowed;
(3)   Quash the sentence imposed on the applicant on 5 October 2022 and resentence the applicant;
(4)   The applicant is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 8 years and 4 months, commencing 20 July 2019 and concluding 19 November 2027, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 5 months, concluding 19 December 2024;
(5)   The applicant would be first eligible for parole on 19 December 2024.

Catchwords:
CRIME – APPEAL – Appeal against sentence – manifest excess – totality – stale offence – relationship between Bugmy factors and mental condition – sentence unfair or plainly unjust.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33A, 97(2), 154A(1)(b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21B, 25D(2)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King [1936] 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Kentwell v R(No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 96
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67; Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 20 November 1995, unrep
R v Jackson [2022] NSWDC 450

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Paul Matthew Jackson (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Kluss (Applicant)
M Swift (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/00223508
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

R v Jackson [2022] NSWDC 450

Date of Decision:

5 October 2022

Before:

Abadee DCJ

JUDGMENT

LEEMING JA: I agree with Rothman J that this appeal should be allowed, the sentence imposed by the District Court quashed, and the applicant resentenced as his Honour proposes. The background and submissions reproduced in his Honour’s judgment enable me to explain my reasons concisely. These reasons do not repeat, and assume familiarity with, those matters.
The sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6½ years, considered alone, seems very high in light of (a) both offences arising out of the course of conduct, (b) the applicant’s very considerable childhood disadvantage which had a direct relationship with the serious crimes committed more than two decades ago, (c) his ongoing mental illness and (d) the indications of steps towards rehabilitation. On the other hand, as the Crown emphasised, the sentence was backdated by 3 years and 3 months, rendering it wholly concurrent…

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 The King

Details

AGLC: Jackson v The King [2023] NSWCCA 121
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 121
Decision Date: 29 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jackson was convicted of manslaughter and appealed against his sentence, which he considered manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Jackson was manifestly excessive, thereby rendering it unfair or plainly unjust. This involved examining whether the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, Jackson's mental condition, and the relationship between the factors considered by the Bugmy decision, justified the sentence.

The court assessed the sentence by considering the principles established in Bugmy and the totality of the circumstances. It emphasised the importance of examining the offence's nature and the defendant's mental condition, as well as the relevance of these factors to the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the severity of the crime and took into account all relevant mitigating factors. The court found that the sentence was fair and just, despite the stale nature of the offence.

The High Court dismissed Jackson's appeal, upholding the original sentence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not render the trial unfair or plainly unjust. The totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offence and Jackson's mental condition, supported the sentence imposed. The court found that the relationship between the Bugmy factors and Jackson's mental condition did not necessitate a reduction in the sentence. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders