Legal Research
Cases
R v Amati

R v Amati

Case [2019] NSWCCA 193 19 August 2019

Appeal

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Criminal Law

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: R v Amati [2019] NSWCCA 193
Hearing dates: 26 July 2019
Date of orders: 19 August 2019
Decision date: 19 August 2019
Before: Simpson AJA at [1]
Johnson J at [10]
Harrison J at [148]
Decision:
By majority, the orders of the Court are:
1. Crown appeal allowed.
2. Sentence imposed by the District Court on 18 January 2019 set aside.
3. In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of eight years commencing on 7 January 2017 which will expire on 6 January 2025, with a balance of term of six years which will expire on 6 January 2031.
Catchwords: APPEAL - Crown appeal - manifest inadequacy of aggregate sentence - sentence after trial - Respondent convicted of three offences under s.27 Crimes Act 1900 - wounding with intent to murder, cause grievous bodily harm with intent to murder and attempt to wound with intent to murder - Respondent armed with large axe and knife - Respondent randomly attacked victims with axe in a convenience store without provocation - initial attack on two victims captured on CCTV footage - attack on third victim on street outside convenience store - significant impact of offences upon all three victims - Respondent had powerful subjective case - consideration of sentencing decisions for s.27 Crimes Act 1900 offences - aggregate sentence manifestly inadequate - appropriate case for Court to resentence Respondent - finding of special circumstances - Respondent resentenced to aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years with a non-parole period of eight years
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46
AM v R [2012] 225 A Crim R 481; [2012] NSWCCA 203
CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Cvetkovic v R [2013] NSWCCA 66
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; [1994] HCA 49
Fardon v Attorney General (Qld) (2004) 223 CLR 575; [2004] HCA 46
Green v The Queen; Quinn v the Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Hitchcock v R [2016] NSWCCA 226
Little v R [2010] NSWCCA 210
Malicki v R [2015] NSWCCA 162
Ng v R [2011] NSWCCA 227; (2014) 214 A Crim R 191
R v Amati [2019] NSWDC 3
R v Carroll (2010) 77 NSWLR 45; [2010] NSWCCA 55
R v Da-Pra [2014] NSWCCA 211
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Garforth (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 23 May 1994, unrep)
R v Gommerson (2014) 243 A Crim R 534; [2014] NSWCCA 159

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 R v Amati

Details

AGLC: R v Amati [2019] NSWCCA 193
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 193
Decision Date: 19 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Amati involved the respondent who was convicted of three serious offences under section 27 of the Crimes Act 1900. The respondent was found guilty of wounding with intent to murder, causing grievous bodily harm with intent to murder, and attempting to wound with intent to murder. The crimes were perpetrated using a large axe and a knife, and the respondent had attacked his victims without any provocation. The attack on two of the victims occurred in a convenience store, while the third victim was attacked on the street outside the store. The impact of the offences on the victims was significant, and the respondent presented a compelling subjective case during sentencing. The Crown appealed the original sentence, arguing that the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the aggregate sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly inadequate, warranting a re-sentencing by the Court. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing under section 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 and assess whether the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed. The court also needed to determine if the original sentencing decisions appropriately took into account the special circumstances of the case. By examining the severity and impact of the offences, the court assessed whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the aggregate sentence of imprisonment for the respondent was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court acknowledged the severity of the crimes and the significant impact on the victims, which warranted a harsher sentence. The court recognised that the original sentencing decisions did not fully account for the special circumstances of the case. As a result, the court re-sentenced the respondent to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years, with a non-parole period of eight years. The court determined that this new sentence appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community.

The final orders of the court involved the re-sentencing of the respondent to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 14 years, with a non-parole period of eight years. The court's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious offences under section 27 of the Crimes Act 1900 adequately reflect the severity and impact of the crimes, as well as the need to protect the community from further harm.

Orders