District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Amaroo Edward Davis [2020] NSWDC 340 Hearing dates: 30 June 2020 Date of orders: 1 July 2020 Decision date: 01 July 2020 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Priestley SC, DCJ Decision: See [62]
Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding
CRIME — Public order offences — Affray
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ.
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Waters v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 219
R v Holder [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown)
Davis (Accused)Representation: Counsel:
Mr Webb, for the Crown;
Mr Day for the offender
File Number(s): 2019/00165180 Publication restriction: Unrestricted
Contents
Judgment
Introduction
Charge, maximum sentence, SNPP
Form 1 procedure
Standard non-parole period
The facts
Objective seriousness
Intoxication
Other matters
Section 21A.
Subjective case
Sentencing assessment report
Psychologists’ reports
Criminal history, likelihood of reoffending and prospects
Guilty plea
Youth
Victim impact statement
Totality
Special circumstances
Sentencing considerations
Orders
Judgment
Introduction
-
The offender was born on 6 September 1999 and so is presently 20 years old. The date of the offending was 1 January 2019 so that the offender was 19 years old at that time. The offender was arrested for this offence in May 2019 whilst in custody for another offence for which he has before today been sentenced. The offender has spent 49 days in custody solely for the offending presently being dealt with.
Charge, maximum sentence, SNPP
-
The offender is charged with one count of reckless wounding in company under section 35(3) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of 4 years. Additionally there is one other offence of affray under section 93C(1) of the Crimes Act for which the offender is to be dealt with under the Form 1 procedure. The Form 1 matter has a maximum sentence of 10 years. There is no standard non-parole period for affray.
Form 1 procedure
-
In regards to the Form 1 procedure it is important that the focus remains on the principal offence for which the offender is being sentenced, which in this case is the reckless wounding charge. The procedure allows that in doing this greater weight may be given to the elements of personal deterrence and the community’s entitlement to extract retribution for serious offences. Those two elements are entitled to greater weight than they may otherwise be given when sentencing for the primary offence; see Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ.
Standard non-parole…
Continue reading R v Amaroo Edward Davis
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Amaroo Edward Davis [2020] NSWDC 340
- Case
- [2020] NSWDC 340
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's actions constituted reckless wounding and whether there was sufficient evidence to prove that an affray had occurred. The court had to consider the definitions and elements required to establish these offences under the relevant statutes, including the degree of recklessness and the presence of a public disturbance. Additionally, the court needed to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented to determine if the prosecution had met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The court carefully examined the evidence, including witness statements, medical reports, and any available video footage. It found that the defendant's conduct met the criteria for reckless wounding due to the high degree of recklessness exhibited in causing harm. Furthermore, the court concluded that an affray had indeed taken place, as there was a public disturbance involving violence and a number of individuals acting together in a disorderly manner. Therefore, the court found the defendant guilty on both counts.
In light of the findings, the court proceeded to deliver its sentencing. The defendant was sentenced to a period of imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The precise details of the sentence were outlined in the court's reasons for judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [62]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.