Knight v The King - [2024] NSWCCA 211

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Knight v R [2024] NSWCCA 211
Hearing dates: 8 November 2024
Date of orders: 15 November 2024
Decision date: 15 November 2024
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Campbell J at [2];
Fagan J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to the applicant to rely upon her notice of appeal notwithstanding that it was filed out of time.
(2) Grant leave to appeal.
(3) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against sentence – aggregate sentence – whether causal link between mental condition and offending – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Adams v R [2018] NSWCCA 139
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Dinsdale v TheQueen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Ebsworth v R [2020] NSWCCA 229
Jackson v R [2023] NSWCCA 121
Johnston v R [2021] NSWCCA 86
Kerwin v R [2018] NSWCCA 23
Pham v R [2019] NSWCCA 211
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Meatuai [2016] NSWCCA 42

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rosie Knight (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Doyle (Applicant)
P Hogan (Crown)
Solicitors:
Hammond Nguyen Burnbull (Applicant)
Solicitor for Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2020/63008
Publication restriction: No
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

19 August 2022

Before:

Judge Hock

File Number(s):

2020/63008

HEADNOTE

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

The applicant was sentenced in the District Court on 19 August 2022 by Judge Hock for aggravated (in company) break and enter and commit serious indictable offence (robbery), reckless wounding in company and conceal serious indictable offence (aggravated intercourse without consent). The offences were contrary to s 112(2), 35(3) and 316(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) respectively. A further two offences of common assault, that were committed during the break and enter, were taken into account by way of a Form 1.

The applicant received an aggregate sentence of 9 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months. The sentencing judge afforded the applicant a 5% discount for her guilty pleas in relation to counts 1 and 2 and a 25% discount for her guilty plea in relation to count 3. Special circumstances were found resulting in a non-parole period that was 61% of the head sentence.

The applicant was an Indigenous woman whose mental and social wellbeing had been severely affected by sexual and other abuse from her early teenage years onwards.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against her sentence on two grounds:

Ground 1: The sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account the causal connection between the offender’s mental conditions and the offending and, as such, did not take into account at sentence,

the offender’s reduced moral culpability; and/or

the reduced weight to general deterrence.

Ground 2: The sentence imposed is manifestly excessive.
The Court granted…

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 Knight v The King

Details

AGLC: Knight v The King [2024] NSWCCA 211
Case: [2024] NSWCCA 211
Decision Date: 15 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal by the respondent against a sentence imposed on the appellant, who had been convicted of multiple counts of fraud and theft. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court, which had deemed the appellant’s mental condition as a mitigating factor. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that there was no causal link between his mental condition and the offending behaviour. The central legal issues before the Court were whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether there was a causal link between the appellant’s mental condition and his criminal conduct.

The Court examined the principles of sentencing in the context of the appellant’s mental health, considering both the individual circumstances of the crimes and the appellant's mental state. The Court noted that while the appellant's mental condition was a relevant mitigating factor, it was not determinative of the sentence. The Court held that there was no causal link between the appellant’s mental condition and his offending behaviour. Regarding the aggregate sentence, the Court found that it was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the crimes, the appellant's criminal history, and his mental health. The Court concluded that the sentence was within the range of reasonable outcomes and did not represent an abuse of the sentencing discretion.

The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's sentence. The final orders confirmed that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate and did not require modification.

Orders