Legal Research
Cases
Police v Mitchell

Police v Mitchell

Case [2008] NSWLC 5 14 February 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police v Mitchell [2008] NSWLC 5

JURISDICTION: Criminal

PARTIES: Police
William John Mitchell

FILE NUMBER:

PLACE OF HEARING: Wagga Wagga Local Court

DATE OF DECISION: 02/14/2008

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate P Dare

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing – Assault Police – Principles - Offender shot by Police – Extra Curial Punishment – Special Circumstances found – Cumulation of Penalty.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1990 ss 21A(2), 50, 51

CASES CITED: Application by the Attorney General under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 2 of 2002) (2002) 137 A Crim R 196; [2002] NSWCCA 515
Cahyadi v R (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
Hoare –v- The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 348.
Pearce –v- The Queen 194 CLR 610 at 624
R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Carberry & Weldon (2002) 136 A Crim R 55; [2002] NSWCCA 475
R v Clissold [2002] NSWCCA 356
R v Close (1992) 31 NSWLR 743
R v Daetz (2003) 139 A Crim R 398.
R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v El-Hayek (2004) 144 A Crim R 90
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Hamilton (1993) 66 A Crim R 575
R v Ibrahim [2005] NSWCCA 43
R v Lee William Barber [2004] NSWCCA 153
R v Leon (unrep) 30/11/94, NSWCCA
R v Mohammed Jouayde [2003] NSWCCA 240
R v Nimmo [2005] NSWCCA 295
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Readman (1990) 47 A Crim R 181
R v Simpson (1992) 61 A Crim R 58;
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Thomson and Holten (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v- Wallace [2007] NSWCCA 63.
Regina v Astill (No. 2) (1992) 64 A Crim R 289
Regina v Bell [2003] NSWCCA 305
Regina v King (2004) 150 A Crim R 409
Regina v MA (2004) 145 A Crim R 434
Regina v Newman & Simpson (2004) 145 A Crim R 361
Regina v Nguyen [2007] NSWCCA 94
Vaovasa v R [2007] NSWCCA 253
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465.
Young v R [2007] NSWCCA 114

TEXTS CITED:

REPRESENTATION: Sergeant D. Middleton
Mr R. Behan, Solicitor, Aboriginal Legal Service

ORDERS:

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Before the Court, once again, is William John Mitchell who appears for sentence in relation to a range of matters. To make some sense of it all it will be helpful to set out the various charges, chronologically, in tabular form, as follows:-

H – and Seq
Date

Offence

H-31446413

1. 14/9/07 Contravene ADVO

2. 14/9/07 Malicious Damage (window)

3. 14/9/07 Malicious Damage (car windscreen)

H-32724978

1. 27/11/07 Contravene ADVO

H-32167132

1. 18/12/07 Contravene ADVO

2. 18/12/07 Intimidation. (Julie Redford)

3. 18/12/07 Malicious Damage (door and fence palings)

4. 18/12/07 Contravene ADVO

H-32701951

1. 18/12/07 Use Weapon to prevent lawful detention

2. 18/12/07 Affray

3. 18/12/07 Assault Officer in Execution…

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 Police v Mitchell

Details

AGLC: Police v Mitchell [2008] NSWLC 5
Case: [2008] NSWLC 5
Decision Date: 14/02/2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Police v Mitchell, the defendant was sentenced for assaulting police officers. The case was heard and determined by the relevant Australian court. The incident in question involved the defendant assaulting several police officers during an arrest, leading to a significant legal dispute regarding the appropriate sentence.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the principles applicable to sentencing for assault on police officers, the impact of the defendant being shot by police during the incident, and the consideration of any extra curial punishment. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether any special circumstances existed that would warrant a departure from standard sentencing practices, and if so, how these circumstances should be reflected in the cumulative penalty imposed.

The court meticulously reviewed the principles guiding sentencing in cases of assault on police officers, acknowledging the heightened culpability associated with such actions. The court also considered the defendant's being shot by police, which added a layer of complexity to the sentencing process. Given the special circumstances identified, the court concluded that these warranted a deviation from the typical sentencing framework. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that appropriately reflected the gravity of the offence, the special circumstances, and the necessity to deter future similar conduct. The court's decision was grounded in a careful balance of the principles of justice and the need for public safety.

Orders