Munn v R - [2009] NSWCCA 218

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Munn v R [2009] NSWCCA 218
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 27 August 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 September 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; McClellan CJatCL at 9; RA Hulme J at 10

DECISION: Leave to appeal be allowed. The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - attempt to strangle with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm - relevance of nature and extent of injuries caused - moderation of sentence by reason of offender's mental condition - whether sentence manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296
R v MW [2007] NSWCCA 291
R v Woods [2009] NSWCCA 55

PARTIES: Darren Munn (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/14876

COUNSEL: Mr P Strickland SC (Applicant)
Mr D Arnott SC/Ms Ms Cinque (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0802

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 17 October 2008

- 1 -

2007/14876

SPIGELMAN CJ
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
R A HULME J

30 September 2009

DARREN MUNN v REGINA

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with the judgment of R A Hulme J which I have read in draft. No error in the exercise of the sentencing discretion has been identified.

2 I wish to add some observations with respect to the long period of offending by the applicant which her Honour Judge Ainslie-Wallace set out in the following summary:

Mental Health Act

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 Munn v R

Details

AGLC: Munn v R [2009] NSWCCA 218
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 218
Decision Date: 30 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Munn v R involved the respondent, Munn, who was convicted of attempting to strangle a person with the intent to inflict grievous bodily harm. Munn appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine the appropriate scope of appellate review in relation to sentences imposed by trial judges in criminal matters. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and extent of the injuries caused and the offender's mental condition.

The legal issues before the court included the principles governing the appellate review of sentences in criminal cases, particularly the circumstances under which an appellate court should intervene to moderate a sentence imposed by a trial judge. The court had to consider whether the sentence was so disproportionate to the offence that it could be described as manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court examined the relevance of the offender's mental condition in assessing the severity of the sentence and whether the trial judge had appropriately taken this into account.

In its decision, the court held that the appellate power to review sentences imposed by trial judges was limited. The court emphasised that the trial judge was in the best position to assess the appropriate sentence, given their direct observation of the offender and the circumstances of the offence. The court further clarified that an appellate court should only intervene if the sentence was manifestly excessive, meaning it was so disproportionate to the offence that no reasonable sentencing judge could have imposed it. The court found that, in this case, the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as the trial judge had appropriately considered the nature and extent of the injuries caused and the offender's mental condition.

The High Court dismissed Munn's appeal against the sentence. The court confirmed that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was within the appropriate range, given the circumstances of the case. The court's decision underscored the principle that appellate courts should exercise restraint in reviewing sentences, recognising the trial judge's primary role in determining the appropriate punishment for a criminal offence.

Orders