Legal Research
Cases
Noonan v The Queen

Noonan v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 346 18 December 2020

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: Noonan v R [2020] NSWCCA 346
Hearing dates: 23 November 2020
Date of orders: 18 December 2020
Decision date: 18 December 2020
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Bellew J at [2]
Wright J at [78]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
(2)   The appeal is allowed.
(3)   The sentence imposed in the District Court is quashed.
(4)   In lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years commencing on 3 August 2017 and expiring on 2 August 2026.
(5)   I specify a non-parole period of 6 years’ imprisonment commencing on 3 August 2017 and expiring on 2 August 2023.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Appeal – Where applicant had pleaded guilty to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – Where applicant asked the sentencing judge to take additional offences into account on a Form 1 – Where applicant had a severe psychotic mental illness which was causally related to his offending – Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the applicant’s mental illness – Whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the evidence of the applicant’s childhood deprivation and exposure to alcohol abuse and violence – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – Objectively serious offending and an associated need to protect the community – Strong subjective case – Ground of appeal asserting manifest excess established – Special circumstances justifying adjustment of statutory ratio – Applicant re-sentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Dinsdalev The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
El-Chaar v R [2007] NSWCCA 16
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Perkins v R [2018] NSWCCA 62
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Engert (1985) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 594
Ryan v R [2009] NSWCCA 183
Tiknius v R (2011) 221 A Crim R 365; [2011] NSWCCA 215
Vaiusu v R [2017] NSWCCA 71

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Taylar Gregory Noonan – Applicant
Regina – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
S Fraser – Applicant
B Baker – Respondent
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW – Applicant
C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) – Respondent

File Number(s): 2017/238412
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

17 May 2019

Before:

Acting Judge O’Connor QC

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Bellew J and the orders which he proposes.
BELLEW J: Taylar Gregory Noonan (the applicant) pleaded guilty before the Local Court…

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 Noonan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Noonan v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 346
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 346
Decision Date: 18 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Noonan v The Queen involved the appellant, Noonan, who had pleaded guilty to an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Noonan sought to have additional offences taken into account during sentencing, and raised concerns about the severity of his sentence. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. Noonan's appeal centred on whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered his severe psychotic mental illness, which was causally related to his offending, and the impact of his childhood experiences of deprivation, alcohol abuse, and violence. Noonan argued that the judge had failed to sufficiently weigh these factors, resulting in a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in not giving sufficient weight to Noonan's mental illness and childhood experiences, and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court had to determine whether the judge's failure to consider these factors amounted to a miscarriage of justice, and if the sentence was disproportionate to the offending and the need to protect the community. The court also needed to assess whether the special circumstances of the case warranted an adjustment to the statutory ratio between the terms of imprisonment.

The High Court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred by failing to give sufficient weight to Noonan's mental illness and the evidence of his childhood deprivation and exposure to alcohol abuse and violence. The court recognised that Noonan's severe mental illness was a significant mitigating factor that should have been taken into account during sentencing. Additionally, the judge's failure to adequately consider Noonan's background and its impact on his offending contributed to a miscarriage of justice. The court determined that the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the objectively serious nature of the offending and the need to protect the community, but also considering the strong subjective case for a reduced sentence. The special circumstances of the case justified an adjustment to the statutory ratio between the terms of imprisonment, and Noonan was re-sentenced accordingly.

Orders