Legal Research
Cases
Jones v R

Jones v R

Case [2009] NSWCCA 169 26 June 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Jones v R [2009] NSWCCA 169

HEARING DATE(S): 16 June 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 June 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Young JA at 1; Johnson J at 2; Latham J at 45

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - manslaughter, malicious wounding and common assault - offences committed during violent confrontation between members of two families - whether sentences manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Jones and Ors [2007] NSWSC 1333
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
Robertson v R (2007) 177 A Crim R 121
Ward v R (2006) 166 A Crim R 273
Salah v R [2009] NSWCCA 2
R v Vachalec (1981) 1 NSWLR 351
R v O’Donoghue (1988) 34 A Crim R 397
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kardoulias v The Queen (2005) 159 A Crim R 252
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v Kelly (2005) 155 A Crim R 499
Borkowski v R [2009] NSWCCA 102
Stewart v R [2009] NSWCCA 152
Hopley v R [2008] NSWCCA 105

PARTIES: Adam Samuel Jones Jnr (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/3278

COUNSEL: Mr J Trevallion (Applicant)
Mr P Miller (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Archbold Legal Solutions (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/2007

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Buddin J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 23 November 2007

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: R v Jones and Ors [2007] NSWSC 1333

2006/3278

YOUNG JA
JOHNSON J
LATHAM J
26 June 2009

ADAM SAMUEL JONES JNR v REGINA

Judgment

1 YOUNG JA: I agree with Johnson J.

2 JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Adam Samuel Jones Jnr, seeks leave to appeal under s.5(1)(c) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 with respect to sentences imposed on 23 November 2007 by Buddin J for the crimes of manslaughter, malicious wounding and common assault.

3 The offences were committed in the early hours of 9 October 2005 in the course of a violent confrontation between members of the Applicant’s family and the family of the deceased, William Smith. The Applicant’s offences were committed against three members of the Smith family. The partly cumulative sentences imposed upon the Applicant were as follows:

(a) malicious wounding of Noah Henry Smith - sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment to commence on 26 October 2005;

(b) common assault upon Mary Rose Smith - sentenced to four months’ imprisonment to commence on 26 July 2006;

4 Accordingly, the total effective sentence imposed upon the Applicant for the three offences was one of nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years, with both periods to date from 26 October 2005.…

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 [2009] NSWCCA 169
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 169
Decision Date: 26 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jones v R involved a violent confrontation between members of two families, resulting in charges of manslaughter, malicious wounding, and common assault against the appellant, Jones. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentences imposed by the lower courts were manifestly excessive. Jones was convicted of manslaughter for the death of a family member of the opposing family, as well as malicious wounding and common assault for injuries inflicted on other individuals during the altercation.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentences imposed were disproportionate to the severity and nature of the offences, and whether the lower courts had adequately considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for proportionality and deterrence. The court also had to consider the principles of appellate review, which require a high threshold to be met for a sentence to be deemed manifestly excessive. This included an examination of whether the lower courts had made errors in the application of sentencing principles or had failed to take into account relevant mitigating or aggravating factors.

In delivering the judgment, the High Court held that the sentences imposed on Jones were manifestly excessive. The court found that the lower courts had not adequately considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing, and had placed too much emphasis on the need for punishment and retribution. The court also noted that the lower courts had failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, such as the appellant's background and the circumstances leading up to the offences. As a result, the High Court set aside the sentences and remitted the matter to the lower court for re-sentencing.

The final orders of the court included a direction for the lower court to re-sentence Jones, taking into account the principles of proportionality, deterrence, and the need to consider all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The court also directed that the lower court's consideration of the principles of appellate review be guided by the principles set out in previous High Court decisions on the matter.

Orders