Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280 Hearing dates: 11 September 2015 Decision date: 02 November 2015 Before: Basten JA at [1];
Adams J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]Decision: 1. Leave to appeal against conviction refused.
2. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction – offences of aggravated robbery, take and detain victim with intent to obtain an advantage and indecent assault – whether error in allowing evidence of post offence conduct – whether error in admitting DNA evidence – grounds of appeal without merit – leave to appeal refused
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – offences of aggravated robbery, take and detain victim with intent to obtain an advantage and indecent assault – whether error in applying R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111 – whether error in taking into account use of violence and/or weapon as aggravating feature – whether failure to have proper regard to special circumstances – whether sentence manifestly excessive – grounds of appeal without merit – leave to appeal refusedLegislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 95(1), 86(1)(b), 61L
Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2000 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 44
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5(1)(b)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 65, 103, 135, 137
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) s 32Cases Cited: Azzi v R [2008] NSWCCA 169
Bin Sulaeman v R [2013] NSWCCA 283
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Hamze v R [2006] NSWCCA 36
Jago v The District Court of New South Wales [1989] HCA 46; 168 CLR 23
Poniris v R [2014] NSWCCA 100
R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v Mauai [2005] NSWCCA 207
R v Tortell; R v Tsegay [2007] NSWCCA 313
R v Sing [2002] NSWCCA 20; 54 NSWLR 31
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343; 55 NSWLR 252Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jaron Angus McDonald (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Mr J Cohen (Applicant)
Ms G O’Rourke (Crown)
M Wong
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
File Number(s): 2011/35278 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court
- Date of Decision:
- 3 June 2013
- Before:
- Murrell SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2011/35278
Judgment
-
BASTEN JA: I agree with R A Hulme J.
-
ADAMS J: I agree with R A Hulme J.
-
R A HULME J: Jaron Angus McDonald ("the applicant") was found guilty by a jury in the District Court at Lismore of four offences contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) on 22 February 2013. He was sentenced by her Honour Judge Murrell SC (as her Honour then was) on 3 June 2013.
-
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his convictions on two grounds relating to the admissibility of certain evidence. (Leave is required as the grounds raise questions of mixed law and fact: s…
Continue reading McDonald v R
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McDonald v R [2015] NSWCCA 280
- Case
- [2015] NSWCCA 280
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court addressed several issues regarding the admissibility of evidence, including whether there was an error in allowing evidence of post-offence conduct and the validity of the DNA evidence presented. The court also examined the sentence, determining whether there was an error in applying the principles from R v Henry and whether the sentence appropriately considered the use of violence and/or a weapon as an aggravating factor. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the sentence failed to properly account for special circumstances and whether it was manifestly excessive.
In evaluating the appeal, the court found no merit in the arguments presented concerning the admissibility of evidence and the sentencing process. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly admitted the contested evidence and that the sentence imposed was appropriate under the circumstances. Consequently, the grounds of appeal were dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The decision affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Supreme Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.