Legal Research
Cases
Prince v R

Prince v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 268 19 October 2020

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: Prince v R [2020] NSWCCA 268
Hearing dates: 2 October 2020
Decision date: 19 October 2020
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Beech-Jones J at [42];
Campbell J at [49]
Decision:
Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – offence of reckless wounding contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – a single ground of appeal to the effect that the sentencing judge erred in failing to make an assessment of the offender’s moral culpability having regard to his deprived background – offender’s deprived background set out in detail by judge – full weight given to offender’s deprived background by reducing effect of general deterrence – a failure to attach the label “moral culpability” to any specific finding did not reveal error – appeal dismissed.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 35, 99
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209
Egan v Regina [2017] NSWCCA 206
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Wood v R [2019] NSWCCA 309

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Leon Prince – Applicant
Regina – Respondent Crown
Representation:
Counsel:
S Hall – Applicant
K Jeffreys – Respondent Crown
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW – Applicant
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Respondent Crown

File Number(s): 2019/039427
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

6 December 2019

Before:

McLennan SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/039427

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offences 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 upon him by his Honour Judge McLennan SC (the sentencing judge) on 6 December 2019 in the District Court at Tamworth. The applicant was sentenced for the offence of reckless wounding contrary to s 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). An offence of demanding property with menaces contrary to s 99(1) of the Crimes Act was taken into account on a Form 1.

The offence of reckless wounding has a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years, with a standard non-parole period of 3 years. Demanding property with menaces has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment.
Taking into account the Form 1 offence, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 2 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months. The non-parole period will expire on 7 February 2021 and the full term will expire on 7 February 2022.
The applicant entered a plea of guilty to the charge on 28 August 2019 in the Tamworth Local Court. The sentencing judge allowed…

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 Prince v R

Details

AGLC: Prince v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 268
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 268
Decision Date: 19 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Prince, was convicted of the offence of reckless wounding, contrary to section 35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had failed to assess his moral culpability in light of his deprived background. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred by not explicitly assessing the appellant's moral culpability. The appellant's counsel argued that the judge had failed to make an explicit finding on this matter, despite acknowledging the appellant's deprived background. The prosecution contended that the judge had implicitly assessed the appellant's moral culpability by taking his background into account when reducing the weight of general deterrence.

The court found that while the sentencing judge had not explicitly labelled the assessment as "moral culpability", the judge had indeed taken into account the appellant's deprived background when determining the sentence. The court held that the absence of the specific label did not constitute an error, as the judge had clearly considered the appellant's background in mitigating the sentence. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The High Court's decision underscored the importance of considering an offender's background in sentencing, but also clarified that the absence of a specific label does not necessarily indicate an error in the sentencing process. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders