Legal Research
Cases
Medcalf v R

Medcalf v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 209 30 September 2016

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Medcalf v R [2016] NSWCCA 209
Hearing dates: 19 August 2016
Date of orders: 30 September 2016
Decision date: 30 September 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Campbell J at [56]
Button J at [57]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal is allowed.
(2)   The sentences imposed on the applicant in the District Court at Newcastle on 21 August 2015 are quashed.
(3)   In lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced as follows:
(a) Count 1 - enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence – to wit assault in circumstances of aggravation with intentional infliction of actual bodily harm, contrary to s 111(2) Crimes Act 1900 – imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months, commencing 7 February 2014 and expiring 6 August 2018, with a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months, expiring 6 February 2020.
(b) Count 2 - cause grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 – imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 3 months, commencing 7 February 2015 and expiring 6 May 2022 with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months expiring 6 November 2024.
(4)   The earliest date on which the applicant will be entitled to parole will be 6 May 2022.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – aggravated enter a building with intent to commit an indictable offence and cause grievous bodily harm with intent to do so – early plea of guilty – two victims suffering serious injuries – offender unable to explain actions – offender person of good character with no previous offences showing genuine remorse – sentence imposed at top of statistical range – error in sentencing process identified – sentence manifestly excessive – offender re-sentenced.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 33(1)(b) , 111(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – s 21A(3)(e)
Cases Cited: Bourke v R [2010] NSWCCA 22; 199 A Crim R 38
Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
House v R [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; 195 CLR 665
Makarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Jione [2007] NSWCCA 170
Regina v Darrell Terry McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 66 NSWLR 566
Ryan v R [2001] HCA 21; 206 CLR 267
Sproates v R [2009] NSWCCA 29
Vragovic v R [2007] NSWCCA 46
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adam Medcalf - Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
CJ Watson – Applicant
S Dowling SC – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
John Anthony Solicitors – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2014/40576

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 Medcalf v R

Details

AGLC: Medcalf v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 209
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 209
Decision Date: 30 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Medcalf, appealed his sentence for aggravated enter a building with intent to commit an indictable offence and cause grievous bodily harm with intent. Two victims were seriously injured during the incident, and Medcalf pleaded guilty at an early stage. Medcalf, who had no prior convictions and was described as a person of good character, showed genuine remorse but was unable to provide an explanation for his actions. The High Court of Australia reviewed the case to determine if the original sentence was appropriate.

The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was excessive. The trial judge had considered Medcalf's early guilty plea, his genuine remorse, and his good character but had ultimately sentenced him at the top of the statistical range for the offence. The appeal raised the question of whether the sentence should be reduced due to an error in the sentencing process and whether it was manifestly excessive. The court needed to balance the gravity of the crime with Medcalf's personal circumstances and the principles of sentencing.

The court found that the error in the sentencing process and the manifest excessivity of the sentence warranted a re-sentencing. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the crime and the injuries caused but also recognised Medcalf's early guilty plea, genuine remorse, and good character. After re-evaluating the case, the court determined that a lower sentence was appropriate. The original sentence was deemed manifestly excessive and was accordingly reduced. The court's decision ensured that the sentence reflected a fair balance between the need for punishment and the mitigating factors present in Medcalf's case.

The final orders of the court were to reduce the sentence imposed on Medcalf, taking into account the error in the sentencing process and the manifest excessivity of the original sentence. The new sentence reflected a more balanced approach, considering both the gravity of the crime and Medcalf's personal circumstances.

Orders