James v The Queen - [2021] NSWCCA 23

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: James v R [2021] NSWCCA 23
Hearing dates: 1 December 2020
Date of orders: 03 March 2021
Decision date: 03 March 2021
Before: Brereton JA at [1]
Bellew J at [85]
Campbell J at [91]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Allow the appeal.
3. Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 19 February 2020 and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to a term of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of nineteen months and five days, dating from 1 August 2019, so that he is eligible for release to parole on 5 March 2021.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Aggravated break and enter and steal – Whether sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account the extent and severity of the applicant’s mental conditions – Whether sentencing judge erred in failing to determine whether and to what extent the applicant’s mental conditions reduced his moral culpability for his offending behaviour

Legislation Cited:
(NSW) Crimes Act 1900, s 112(2)
(NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 10, 10A, 11, 44(2)

Cases Cited:
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Clarke-Jeffries v R [2019] NSWCCA 56
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Elturk v R (2014) 239 A Crim R 584; [2014] NSWCCA 61
Hung v R [2019] NSWCCA 303
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Matthew Christopher James (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Barrow (Applicant)
M Kumar (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/343135
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

19 February 2020

Before:

Delaney ADCJ

File Number(s):

2017/343135

HEADNOTE

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

The applicant, who has a significant psychological impairment and a borderline IQ, with very low cognitive ability (falling into the bottom 2%-5% of the population), impaired executive functioning skills (falling into the bottom 1%-4% of the population), and level one to two Autism Spectrum Disorder, pleaded guilty to the offence of breaking and entering and committing a serious indictable offence in circumstances of aggravation, contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and was sentenced in the District Court to a term of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. He sought leave to appeal from the sentence on the grounds that the primary judge erred in failing to take into account the extent and severity of his psychological conditions and in failing to determine whether and to what extent they reduced his moral culpability, and on the ground…

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 James v The Queen

Details

AGLC: James v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 23
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 23
Decision Date: 03 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the applicant, James, against his sentence for aggravated break and enter and steal. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. James argued that the sentencing judge had erred in not adequately considering the extent and severity of his mental conditions, which he claimed should have reduced his moral culpability for the crimes. Additionally, he contended that the judge failed to determine the extent to which his mental conditions mitigated his responsibility for the offences.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: whether the sentencing judge had made errors in not considering the full extent of James's mental conditions and whether these conditions reduced his moral culpability for the crimes. The court was required to examine the sentencing judge's reasoning and determine if there were any errors that warranted a reconsideration of the sentence.

In examining the appeal, the court found that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently taken into account James's mental health conditions. The court held that the judge's failure to consider these conditions was a significant error, as they could have played a crucial role in mitigating James's moral culpability. The court concluded that the error in the sentencing process was substantial enough to warrant a re-sentencing, as it affected the overall fairness and accuracy of the sentence imposed.

Ultimately, the court ordered a re-sentencing hearing to be conducted with the proper consideration of James's mental health conditions. The court directed that the sentencing judge should now fully assess and incorporate these conditions in determining the appropriate sentence, ensuring that the final decision reflects a fair and accurate assessment of James's culpability.

Orders