Mansfield v The Queen - [2019] NSWCCA 266

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Mansfield v R [2019] NSWCCA 266
Hearing dates: 30 October 2019
Date of orders: 06 November 2019
Decision date: 06 November 2019
Before: Gleeson JA at [1]
Harrison J at [1]
Cavanagh J at [1]
Decision:
(1)    Grant Mr Mansfield leave to appeal against his sentence.
(2)    Allow the appeal.
(3)    Quash the sentence imposed upon Mr Mansfield by Frearson DCJ on 7 September 2017.
(4)    In lieu thereof, sentence Mr Mansfield to a non-parole term of imprisonment of 2 years commencing on 7 September 2017 and expiring on 6 September 2019 with a balance of term of 1 year expiring on 6 September 2020.

Catchwords: CRIME – sentence appeal – where applicant pleaded guilty to reckless wounding – where applicant sentenced to imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months – where offence of stalk/intimidate on a Form 1 also taken into account on sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal allowed – re-sentence
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(c)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 21A(2)(j), 33
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007, s 13(1)
Cases Cited: Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297
Ciaron McCullough v R (2009) 194 A Crim R 439; [2009] NSWCCA 94
Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
DPP v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Mun v R [2015] NSWCCA 234
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
Tweeddale v R [2012] NSWCCA 99
Xue v R [2017] NSWCCA 137
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Corey Mansfield (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Marr (Applicant)
D Patch (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Matthew Lorkin (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/364469
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

7 September 2017

Before:

Frearson DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/00364469, 2015/00249469

Judgment

THE COURT: Corey Troy Mansfield seeks leave to appeal pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against a sentence imposed by Frearson DCJ at Sydney District Court on 7 September 2017. Mr Mansfield had earlier pleaded guilty in the Downing Centre Local Court to the offence of reckless wounding on 11 December 2015. That is an offence contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 7 years, with a standard non-parole period of 3 years. His Honour was also asked to take into account on a Form 1 and pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 an offence of stalk/intimidate contrary to s 13(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
A notice of intention to apply for leave to appeal was filed within time on 18 September 2017, but the application for leave…

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 Mansfield v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mansfield v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 266
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 266
Decision Date: 06 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mansfield v The Queen involved the appellant, who pleaded guilty to the offence of reckless wounding. The sentencing judge imposed a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months. Additionally, the offence of stalking or intimidating on a Form 1 was taken into account in the sentence. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive and, if so, what the appropriate remedy would be. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing, the gravity of the offence, and the circumstances of the appellant's offending. The court also had to consider whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offending and whether the non-parole period was appropriate.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty to a serious offence and that the sentence imposed was within the statutory maximum penalty. However, the court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the appellant's personal circumstances and the nature of the offending. The court considered that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the offending and that the non-parole period was too long. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for courts to consider the individual circumstances of each case.

Orders