Legal Research
Cases
Martin Wade v The King

Martin Wade v The King

Case [2023] NSWCCA 135 19 June 2023

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Martin Wade v R [2023] NSWCCA 135
Hearing dates: 13 March 2023
Date of orders: 19 June 2023
Decision date: 19 June 2023
Before: Gleeson JA [1]
Davies at [2]
Wilson J at [69]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal.
2. Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – unlawful detention – contract enforcer – whether indicative sentence manifestly excessive – whether aggregate sentence manifestly excessive – use of statistics and comparative cases – objective criminality below mid-range – weight given to subjective factors matter for sentencing judge – notional accumulation – generous reduction of statutory ratio – appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 86, 111

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 36
Clarke v R [2021] NSWCCA 236
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; (2014) 246 A Crim R 528
R v Newell [2004] NSWCCA 183
R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130; (2012) 221 A Crim R 175
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rongokarae Martin Wade (Applicant)
The King (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Kluss (Applicant)
J Styles (Respondent)
Solicitors:
R Hill (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/118198
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Nil

Date of Decision:

22 July 2022

Before:

Shead SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/118198

HEADNOTE

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

The applicant pleaded guilty to two counts; one of entering Mr Cork and Ms Carroll’s house (sequence 2), and one of unlawfully detaining them (sequence 3), both with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, namely, intimidation. He was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and seven months.

The applicant was described as the “muscle” used to enforce a civil debt. On 12 December 2020, the applicant and a second male intruder entered Mr Cork and Ms Carroll’s house to place pressure on Mr Cork and intimidate him on behalf of Mr Jou. Mr Jou claimed that Mr Cork owed his business $1,000,000. The couple were detained inside their home for between four and seven minutes. During this time, Ms Carroll’s left index finger was cut by a machete, a packing knife was held to Mr Cork’s neck, his Tag Heuer watch was stolen, and the intruders made serious threats to maim and kill, including if reported to police.

The sentencing judge found that the objective seriousness of each offence fell below the mid-range. Her Honour’s remarks on sentence considered the applicant’s remorse, early guilty plea, low level of intellect, factors analogous to those discussed in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 and the more onerous conditions of the Covid 19 pandemic. These subjective factors mitigated the applicant’s sentence. Finally, her Honour…

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 Wade v The King

Details

AGLC: Martin Wade v The King [2023] NSWCCA 135
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 135
Decision Date: 19 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Martin Wade versus The King, the appellant, Martin Wade, was convicted of various serious offences including unlawful detention, assault, and contract enforcement. Wade appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the aggregate sentence was similarly so.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, the use of statistics and comparative cases in assessing the severity of the sentence, and whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court had to consider the weight given to subjective factors by the sentencing judge and the notion of notional accumulation.

The court found that the objective criminality of Wade's conduct was below the mid-range, and the weight given to subjective factors was a matter for the sentencing judge. The court held that the use of statistics and comparative cases was not inappropriate, provided they were used as a guide and not determinative. The court also found that the generous reduction of the statutory ratio did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The appeal was ultimately dismissed as the court found no error in the sentencing process.

Orders