Legal Research
Cases
Pratt v The Queen

Pratt v The Queen

Case [2021] NSWCCA 76 23 April 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Pratt v R [2021] NSWCCA 76
Hearing dates: 19 October 2020
Decision date: 23 April 2021
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Harrison J at [75];
Bellew J at [76]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – attempted sexual intercourse without consent – maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment – assault on victim in train carriage – applicant under influence of methamphetamine at time of offending – no connection between mental condition and offending – applicant raised in environment of drug abuse and violence – previous conviction for producing child abuse material – finding of remorse – prospects of rehabilitation guarded – whether sentence manifestly excessive – limitations on use of comparative cases – leave to appeal granted but appeal dismissed.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 61I
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)(c)

Cases Cited:
Adzioski v R [2013] NSWCCA 69
Al Mosawe v R [2012] NSWCCA 275
DAC v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 265
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
FV v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 237
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
JJ v R [2020] NSWCCA 165
Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160
R v David Ford [2018] NSWDC 183
R v Nahn [2017] NSWDC 432
Smith v R [2020] NSWCCA 181
Vandeventer v R [2013] NSWCCA 33
Wright v R [2019] NSWCCA 134

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Nathan Pratt – Applicant
Regina – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
S Fraser – Applicant
K Jeffreys – Respondent
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent

File Number(s): 2018/237941
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

19 July 2019

Before:

Zahra SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/237941

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offence and sentence

The applicant seeks leave pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by his Honour Judge Zahra SC (the sentencing judge) at the Sydney District Court on 19 July 2019.

The applicant received a sentence of imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 7 months for an offence of attempt sexual intercourse without consent, contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. As the offence was one of attempt, the standard non-parole period of 7 years did not apply. The sentence commenced on 2 September 2018 and expires on 1 September 2024. The non-parole period is to expire on 1 April 2022. An offence of possessing less than a small quantity of a prohibited drug was taken into account on a Form 1.
The sentencing judge applied a discount of 25 per cent for the early plea of guilty. His Honour found…

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 Pratt v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pratt v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 76
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 76
Decision Date: 23 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Pratt, appealed against the sentence imposed on him following a conviction for attempted sexual intercourse without consent. The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years imprisonment. The court had to decide if the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant had assaulted the victim in a train carriage while under the influence of methamphetamine. The applicant had no connection between his mental condition and the offending, having been raised in an environment of drug abuse and violence. The applicant had a previous conviction for producing child abuse material, but had shown remorse and had guarded prospects of rehabilitation.

The court examined the sentencing principles relevant to the case, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. It considered the severity of the offence and the need to protect the community. The court also considered the applicant's background and personal circumstances, including his upbringing and drug use. The court noted that the applicant had shown some remorse, but this was not enough to significantly reduce the sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The court recognised the limitations of using comparative cases in determining whether a sentence is manifestly excessive. The court held that each case must be considered on its own merits, and that the sentence must be proportionate to the offence and the offender. The court also noted that the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation were guarded, and that this was a relevant consideration in determining the sentence.

The court granted leave to appeal, but dismissed the appeal. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the sentence was unjust or disproportionate. The court emphasised the importance of protecting the community and ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders