Legal Research
Cases
Martin v R

Martin v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 6 10 February 2015

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Martin v R
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWCCA 6
Hearing Date(s):	24 November 2014
Decision Date:	10 February 2015
Before:	Hidden J at [1] Price J at [2] Schmidt J at [63]
Decision:	1. The extension of time to seek leave to appeal is granted. 2. Leave to appeal granted. 3. Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – mental illness – whether principles applicable to an offender suffering mental illness correctly applied – whether error in not assessing moral culpability – whether sentence imposed by the judge was appropriate
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 95(1), 61J(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 3A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 6(3)
Cases Cited:	Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1998) 164 CLR 465 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 273 ALR 324 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 Ayshow v R [2011] NSWCCA 240 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 85 ALJR 1154 MDZ v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 243 Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 313 ALR 451 Dawson v R [2013] NSWCCA 61
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Trevor Leonard Martin (Applicant) Crown (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: G Turnbull SC with S Pararajasingham (Applicant) P G Ingram SC (Crown) Solicitors: T.J. Heenan (Applicant) J. Pheils (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)
File Number(s):	2011/263626
Decision under appeal:
Court or Tribunal:	District Court of New South Wales
Date of Decision:	24 May 2013
Before:	Hock DCJ
File Number(s):	2011/00263626006

JUDGMENT

HIDDEN J: I agree with Price J.
PRICE J: Trevor Leonard Martin, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him in the Sydney District Court on 24 May 2013. He applies for an extension of time for leave to appeal, which the Crown does not oppose.
On 1 March 2012, the applicant was committed to stand trial in the Sydney District Court. However, before a trial date was set, the applicant offered to plead guilty to the following offences which the Crown accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment:
Count 1: On 29 April 2009 at Darlinghurst in the State of New South Wales did rob [the complainant] of a handbag, a purse, a sum of cash, a mobile phone and a mobile phone charger, and at the time of the robbery used corporal violence on [the complainant]. This was an offence of aggravated robbery (using corporal violence) contrary to s 95(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment.
Count 2: On 29 April 2009 at Darlinghurst in the State of New South Wales did have sexual intercourse [with the complainant] without her consent in circumstances of aggravation, namely that at the time of, or immediately before or after the commission of the offence, [the applicant] intentionally inflicted actual bodily harm on [the complainant]. This was an offence of aggravated sexual assault…

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 Martin v R

Details

AGLC: Martin v R [2015] NSWCCA 6
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 6
Decision Date: 10 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Martin v R involved a criminal defendant, Martin, who was convicted of a serious crime. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, with a particular focus on Martin's mental illness. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the principles applied to sentencing an offender with a mental illness and whether the trial judge had correctly assessed Martin's moral culpability. The central legal issues revolved around the correct application of sentencing principles for offenders suffering from mental illness, the assessment of moral culpability, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The court examined whether the trial judge had adequately considered Martin's mental illness when determining the appropriate sentence. It was crucial to determine if the trial judge had correctly applied the principles established in relevant case law for offenders with mental illnesses. Additionally, the court assessed whether there was an error in the trial judge's evaluation of Martin's moral culpability, considering his mental state. The court also evaluated whether the sentence imposed was proportionate and appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors, including Martin's mental illness.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered Martin's mental illness and its impact on his moral culpability. The court held that the trial judge had not correctly applied the principles established in previous case law for sentencing offenders with mental illnesses. Consequently, the court concluded that there was an error in the assessment of Martin's moral culpability. Additionally, the court determined that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was not appropriate, as it had not sufficiently taken into account Martin's mental illness. The case was remitted to the trial court for resentencing, with proper consideration of Martin's mental health and its impact on his culpability.

Orders