McCoy v The Crown - [2006] FCAFC 134

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McCoy v The Crown [2006] FCAFC 134
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – trial judge taking into account material not in evidence on the sentencing hearing – conditional release on recognizance extending beyond head sentence – sentence imposed by Supreme Court of Norfolk Island excessive considering maximum penalty, comparable sentences and plea of guilty – resentencing – conditions of release
Criminal Law Act 1960 (Norfolk Island), ss 59, 556B, 556C(5)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Cole (2005) 91 SASR 480 cited
MARK VINCENT LEOPOLD McCOY v THE CROWN
NSD 416 OF 2006
TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ
1 SEPTEMBER 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 416 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND

BETWEEN:

MARK VINCENT LEOPOLD McCOY
Appellant

AND:

THE CROWN
Respondent

JUDGES:

TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

1 SEPTEMBER 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal against the sentence imposed upon the appellant, Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy, by the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island on 10 February 2006 be upheld.
2.The orders of 10 February 2006 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that:
(1)Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years, commencing from 10 February 2006.
(2)Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy be released after having served at least 12 months of that said term, upon entering into a recognizance, without sureties, that he will:
(a)be of good behaviour for the balance of the period of the said term; and
(b)during that said period, reside in New South Wales and accept the supervision and guidance of the New South Wales Probation and Parole Service and obey all reasonable directions including any requirement by the Probation and Parole Service to attend a suitable rehabilitation course for the treatment of drug or alcohol dependency, provided that should the need arise during the said period by reason of the fact that there is a death in the immediate family of Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy (defined as his mother, father or sibling), Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy be granted permission to travel to and from New South Wales to Norfolk Island on compassionate grounds to attend the funeral of the member of his immediate family as defined.

3.There be no order as to costs of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 416 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NORFOLK ISLAND

BETWEEN:

MARK VINCENT LEOPOLD McCOY
Appellant

AND:

THE CROWN
Respondent

JUDGES:

TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ

DATE:

1 SEPTEMBER 2006

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:

In the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island the appellant, Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy, pleaded guilty to a charge that he did, on 1 January 2005, assault thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to Martin Joseph Roseingrave. After conviction and…

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 McCoy v The Crown

Details

AGLC: McCoy v The Crown [2006] FCAFC 134
Case: [2006] FCAFC 134
Decision Date: 1 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McCoy v The Crown involved the appellant, Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy, appealing against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island. The appellant had been convicted of possessing a knife in a public place, a charge that was deemed a serious matter given the circumstances surrounding the offence. The appeal was brought before the court to review the appropriateness and severity of the sentence imposed, which was a custodial sentence of two years and eight months. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the offence committed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the nature and gravity of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing in Australian law. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence, given that the appellant had no prior convictions and that the circumstances of the offence did not warrant such a lengthy custodial sentence. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the need to maintain public safety.

The court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, determined that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court found that the original sentence did not appropriately balance the need for punishment with the need for rehabilitation and proportionality. The court highlighted the lack of prior criminal history of the appellant and the fact that the offence did not involve any violence or threat to public safety. As such, the court deemed the original sentence disproportionate and set it aside, substituting a sentence of imprisonment for a term of two years, with the appellant to be released after serving at least 12 months, subject to specific conditions aimed at rehabilitation and public safety. The court's decision was grounded in the principles of proportionality and the need for sentences to be tailored to the individual circumstances of the offender and the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against the sentence imposed upon the appellant, Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy, by the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island on 10 February 2006 be upheld.

2. The orders of 10 February 2006 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that:

(1) Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years, commencing from 10 February 2006.

(2) Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy be released after having served at least 12 months of that said term, upon entering into a recognizance, without sureties, that he will:

(a) be of good behaviour for the balance of the period of the said term; and

(b) during that said period, reside in New South Wales and accept the supervision and guidance of the New South Wales Probation and Parole Service and obey all reasonable directions including any requirement by the Probation and Parole Service to attend a suitable rehabilitation course for the treatment of drug or alcohol dependency, provided that should the need arise during the said period by reason of the fact that there is a death in the immediate family of Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy (defined as his mother, father or sibling), Mark Vincent Leopold McCoy be granted permission to travel to and from New South Wales to Norfolk Island on compassionate grounds to attend the funeral of the member of his immediate family as defined.

3. There be no order as to costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 416 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	MARK VINCENT LEOPOLD McCOY Appellant
AND:	THE CROWN Respondent

JUDGES:	TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	1 SEPTEMBER 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 416 OF 2006

JUDGES:	TAMBERLIN, GYLES AND STONE JJ
DATE:	1 SEPTEMBER 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY