Legal Research
Cases
Jones v R

Jones v R

Case [2012] NSWCCA 262 10 December 2012

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Jones v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCCA 262

Hearing Date(s): 9 August 2012

Decision Date: 10 December 2012

Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
R A Hulme J at [99]
Schmidt J at [115]

Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against conviction granted and the appeal dismissed.

2. With respect to sentence leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is upheld and the sentences imposed in the court below are quashed and the applicant is resentenced as follows:

(a) in relation to count 1 sentence the applicant to a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 12 November 2010 and expiring on 11 November 2013 with a further term of 2 years to expire on 11 November 2015.

(b) in relation to count 2 sentence the applicant to a non-parole period of 8 years commencing on 12 November 2010 and expiring on 11 November 2018 with a further term of 4 years expiring on 11 November 2022.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - conviction - expert evidence - whether refusal to exclude expert evidence gave rise to miscarriage of justice - whether refusal to exclude lay evidence gave rise to a miscarriage of justice - inconsistent verdicts - whether verdict unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence.

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - application of standard non-parole period - whether sentencing judge committed error in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 - aggravating factors - whether age of victim, injury and emotional harm properly were aggravating factors - whether sentence was manifestly excessive.

Legislation Cited: Evidence Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited: DS v R [2012] NSWCCA 159
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
MLP v R [2006] NSWCCA 271; (2006) 164 A Crim R 93
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
R v Markuleski [2001] NSWCCA 290; (2001) 52 NSWLR 82
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
SGJ v R [2008] NSWCCA 258
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Corey James Gregory Jones (Applicant)
Crown

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
S Bogan (Applicant)
M M Cinque (Crown)

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
CrimLaw NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2009/9220

Decision Under Appeal

- Before: Madgwick ADCJ

- Date of Decision: 15 February 2011

- Court File Number(s): 2009/9220

JUDGMENT

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The applicant was tried on an indictment containing the following three counts:
Count 1: On or about 3rd October 2008 at or near Kingswood in the State of New South Wales did have sexual intercourse with [the complainant], a child then under the age of ten years, namely six years.
Count 2: On or about 3rd October 2008 at or near Kingswood in the State of New South Wales did have sexual intercourse with [the complainant] a child then under the age of…

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 Jones v R

Details

AGLC: Jones v R [2012] NSWCCA 262
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 262
Decision Date: 10 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jones v R, the appellant challenged his conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. The dispute arose from a criminal trial in which the appellant was found guilty of various offences. The case came before the court of appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the decisions made during the original trial and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The legal issues central to the appeal included the admissibility of expert and lay evidence, the consistency of the verdicts, and the application of sentencing principles. The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by refusing to exclude expert and lay evidence, which he claimed led to a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, the appellant contended that the verdicts were inconsistent and unreasonable, lacking support from the evidence. Regarding sentencing, the appellant claimed that the trial judge applied an incorrect legal test when determining the standard non-parole period and misidentified certain factors as aggravating elements. The appellant further argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court of appeal found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the expert and lay evidence, and the verdicts were consistent and supported by the evidence. The court also held that the trial judge correctly applied the relevant legal principles in determining the standard non-parole period and appropriately considered the aggravating factors. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders