Legal Research
Cases
Jeffree v R

Jeffree v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 72 20 April 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Jeffree v R [2017] NSWCCA 72
Hearing dates: 31 March 2017
Decision date: 20 April 2017
Before: Beazley P at [1];
Walton J at [51];
R A Hulme J at [52]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal;
(2) Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – applicant had a number of physical and mental disabilities and vulnerabilities – whether sentencing judge failed to have regard to extent to which those matters impacted upon moral culpability for offending conduct – principles determining when mental condition will impact on sentencing process

CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – applicant had a number of physical and mental disabilities and vulnerabilities – whether appropriate for sentencing judge to give weight to general deterrence – role of general deterrence – applicant convicted of offences relating to use and possession of firearm – general deterrence in context of sentencing for offences involving firearms
CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – applicant convicted of offences relating to use and possession of a firearm and assault – sentence in respect of each offence accumulated by three months – whether this gave rise to totality error – whether there must be commonality between offences to warrant identical internal accumulation – principles concerning aggregate sentences
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41; [2007] NSWCCA 1
JM v R (2014) 246 A Crim R 528; [2014] NSWCCA 297
Laspina v R [2016] NSWCCA 181
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Harris (2007) 171 A Crim R 267; [2007] NSWCCA 130
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Vincent Victor Jeffree (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Francis (Applicant)
S Hughes (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Office of the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/345136
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

04 December 2015

Before:

Cogswell SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/345136

Headnote

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

On 23 November 2014, the applicant became involved in an argument with his neighbour. During the course of this argument, the applicant produced a home-made pistol. He discharged a shot into the front of the neighbour’s car, in which the neighbour was then sitting.

The applicant later attempted to discharge the firearm a second time, but it did not discharge. When this occurred, the applicant hit the neighbour on the back of the head with the butt of his pistol, causing lacerations. When the neighbour’s father tried to calm him, the applicant pointed his pistol at the neighbour’s father’s head and stated that he was “going to kill him”, meaning the neighbour.

The applicant also smashed 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 Jeffree v R

Details

AGLC: Jeffree v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 72
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 72
Decision Date: 20 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jeffree v R involved an applicant seeking leave to appeal against his sentence. The applicant had multiple physical and mental disabilities and vulnerabilities, and he argued that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider how these factors impacted his moral culpability for the offending conduct. The case was heard in the relevant court, which had to determine whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles concerning the impact of mental conditions on the sentencing process.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentencing judge should have given weight to general deterrence, particularly in the context of offences involving firearms. The applicant was convicted of offences relating to the use and possession of a firearm and assault. The court also had to consider whether the accumulation of sentences for each offence by three months gave rise to a totality error, and whether there must be commonality between offences to warrant identical internal accumulation. The principles concerning aggregate sentences were also examined.

The court found that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately consider the applicant's vulnerabilities, and that these factors should have been taken into account when assessing moral culpability. The court also determined that general deterrence was not an appropriate consideration in this case, given the applicant's specific circumstances. Regarding the aggregation of sentences, the court found that there was no totality error, as the sentences for each offence were properly accumulated. The court held that there did not need to be a commonality between offences for identical internal accumulation to be appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, and the case was remitted to the sentencing judge for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court emphasised the importance of properly considering an offender's vulnerabilities and the appropriate application of general deterrence in the sentencing process.

Orders