Legal Research
Cases
Newman v R

Newman v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 270 19 October 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Newman v R [2015] NSWCCA 270
Hearing dates: 7 August 2015
Date of orders: 19 October 2015
Decision date: 19 October 2015
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Adams J at [2]
Fagan J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) The sentence imposed in the District Court on 25 July 2014 is quashed.
(4) The Applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months commencing 26 May 2014 and expiring 25 July 2016 and a balance of the term of 1 year and 10 months commencing 26 July 2016 and expiring on 25 May 2018. The Applicant will become eligible for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – wounding with intention to cause grievous bodily harm – whether manifest excess – comparable sentences
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Chen v R [2011] NSWCCA 85
Connelly v R [2009] NSWCCA 293
Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462
Haoui v R [2008] NSWCCA 209
Heron v R [2006] NSWCCA 215
Hili v the Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
Muggleton v R [2015] NSWCCA 62
Nowak v R [2008] NSWCCA 89
Porter v R [2015] NSWCCA 59
R v Chisari [2006] NSWCCA 19
R v Dickinson [2004] NSWCCA 457
R v Miria [2009] NSWCCA 68
R v Pearson [2002] NSWCCA 429
R v Rudd [2010] NSWCCA 71
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Justin Newman (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
G Wendler (Applicant)
H Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Saba Lawyers (Applicant)
C Hyland – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/133998
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

25 July 2014

Before:

Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/133998

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Fagan J.
ADAMS J: I agree with Fagan J.
FAGAN J: After a trial in the District Court at Sydney the Applicant was found guilty on 26 May 2014 of a charge that on 30 April 2013 at Padstow he wounded Craig Hanslow with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 33(1)(a), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 25 years. The standard non-parole period pursuant to s 54A, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is 7 years.
The Applicant was refused further bail following the return of the jury’s verdict. On 25 July 2014 he was sentenced. Her Honour Judge Huggett imposed a term of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months commencing 26 May 2014, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months, the balance of the term being 3 years.
The Applicant seeks leave to appeal from the…

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 Newman v R

Details

AGLC: Newman v R [2015] NSWCCA 270
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 270
Decision Date: 19 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court, Newman appealed against his conviction for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The appeal was based on the contention that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in comparison to sentences imposed in similar cases. The primary focus of the appeal was the appropriate assessment of the severity of the crime and the proportionality of the sentence.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. This involved a detailed examination of the nature of the crime, the appellant's criminal history, and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The court also assessed the comparability of sentences in similar cases to determine if the sentence was disproportionate. The key legal issue was the balance between the severity of the crime and the appropriateness of the sentence, with particular emphasis on whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It held that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and took into account all relevant factors, including the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence. The court emphasised that it was not the role of the appellate court to re-weigh the evidence or the sentence but to ensure that the sentence was within the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed. The appeal was dismissed as the sentence was deemed to be appropriate.

No further orders were made by the court. The sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld as appropriate and proportionate to the crime committed.

Orders