Legal Research
Cases
Lawrence v The King

Lawrence v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 110 24 May 2023

Appeal

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Court Order

Mitigating Circumstances

Objective Gravity

Manifest Excess

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Lawrence v R [2023] NSWCCA 110
Hearing dates: 13 March 2023
Decision date: 24 May 2023
Before: Gleeson JA
Davies J
Wilson J
Decision:
(1)   Extend the time in which to file the application for leave to appeal to 25 October 2022;
(2)   Grant leave to appeal;
(3)   Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – offences of intimidation and aggravated kidnapping – domestic violence offences committed in breach of court order – further offences taken into account - question of error in treatment of criminal history – question of error in assessment of objective gravity – whether moral culpability is a component of objective gravity – question of treatment of drug addiction – whether drug addiction formed in childhood is a separate and distinct mitigating feature – question of manifest excess

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act2007 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Biddle v R [2017] NSWCCA 128
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
DR v R [2022] NSWCCA 151
DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156
Hayek v R [2016] NSWCCA 126
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jerome Lawrence (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Stares SC with J Etkind (Applicant)
S Lind (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Watson Law (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/00322924
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

27 August 2021

Before:

Judge Baly SC

File Number(s):

2019/00322924

HEADNOTE

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

On 27 August 2021 the applicant, Jerome Lawrence, was sentenced before the District Court at Campbelltown for intimidation with intent to cause harm contrary to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal) Violence Act 2007 (NSW) and aggravated detain person with intent to intimidate contrary to s 86(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). A further six charges were taken into account on two Form 1 documents pursuant to ss 32 and 33(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). Another charge was before the court pursuant to ss 166 and 167 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 6 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years, affording the applicant a 10% discount to reflect his late pleas.

In the early hours of the morning of 12…

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 Lawrence v The King

Details

AGLC: Lawrence v The King [2023] NSWCCA 110
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 110
Decision Date: 24 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was heard by the High Court against a sentence imposed for offences of intimidation and aggravated kidnapping. The offences were committed in breach of a court order, and further offences were taken into account. The appellant argued that there were errors in the treatment of his criminal history, the assessment of the objective gravity of the offending, the consideration of his moral culpability and his drug addiction which formed in childhood. The appellant also argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court was required to determine whether there was an error in the treatment of the appellant's criminal history, the assessment of the objective gravity of the offending, the consideration of the appellant's moral culpability, the consideration of the appellant's drug addiction and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The High Court found that there was no error in the treatment of the appellant's criminal history, the assessment of the objective gravity of the offending or the consideration of the appellant's moral culpability. The Court found that moral culpability was not a component of objective gravity and that the primary judge had correctly considered the appellant's criminal history and the objective gravity of the offending. The Court also found that the appellant's drug addiction, which formed in childhood, was not a separate and distinct mitigating feature. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the primary judge and dismissed the appeal. The Court found that there was no error in the treatment of the appellant's criminal history, the assessment of the objective gravity of the offending or the consideration of the appellant's moral culpability. The Court also found that the appellant's drug addiction, which formed in childhood, was not a separate and distinct mitigating feature. The Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the primary judge.

Orders