R v Barrett - [2006] NSWCCA 348

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v BARRETT [2006] NSWCCA 348

FILE NUMBER(S):
06/1150

HEARING DATE(S): 20 July 2006

DECISION DATE: 06/11/2006

PARTIES:
Regina
Luke Nathan BARRETT

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL Hulme J Hall J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/41/0027

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Goldring DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: P Barrett
Respondent: Ms B Rigg

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S Kavanagh
Respondent: SE O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
(Orders made on 20 July 2006)
Count 1: Appeal allowed, sentence imposed by Judge Phelan quashed; in lieu thereof the Respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 15 months commencing on 1 May 2005 with a balance of term of 3 years commencing on 1 August 2006.
Counts 2, 3 and 4: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

- 18 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/1150
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
HULME J
HALL J
Monday, 6 November 2006

R v Luke Nathan BARRETT

Judgment

MCCLELLAN CJ AT CL: I agree with Hulme J.
HULME J: These proceedings are a Crown appeal against 4 sentences imposed on the Respondent by Judge Goldring on 7 April last. The offences with which the Respondent was charged and the sentences imposed were:-
1.Breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence therein, namely larceny and at the time of the larceny, maliciously inflicting actual bodily harm upon Benjamin Young - imprisonment for a term of 2½ years including a non-parole period of 1 year and 3 months both such periods commencing on 1 May 2005.
2.Assaulting Assunta Young, thereby occasioning actual bodily harm – imprisonment for 8 months including a non-parole period of 6 months, both such periods commencing on 1 January 2005.
3.Assaulting Mark Young thereby occasioning actual bodily harm - imprisonment for 8 months including a non-parole period of 6 months, both such periods commencing on 1 January 2005.
4.Assaulting Steen Barnes thereby occasioning actual bodily harm - imprisonment for 8 months including a non-parole period of 6 months, both such periods commencing on 1 January 2005.
The maximum period of imprisonment prescribed for the offence, the subject of count 1 is, by virtue of s112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, 20 years. The maximum period of imprisonment prescribed in respect of each of the other offences is by Section 59 of the Crimes Act, 5 years. Pursuant to the table which follows s54D of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act there is a standard non-parole period of 5 years for the offence the subject of count 1.
The appeal came on for hearing on 20 July last when the Court ordered that:-
(i) The sentence on count 1 be quashed;
(ii)On that count the Respondent be re-sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 15 months commencing on 1 May 2005, with a balance of term of 3 years commencing on 1 August 2006; and
(iii)The appeals in relation to the sentences imposed on counts 2, 3 and 4 be dismissed.

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 Barrett

Details

AGLC: R v Barrett [2006] NSWCCA 348
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 348
Decision Date: 6 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Barrett, the defendant faced a criminal trial before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The nature of the dispute was a serious charge of aggravated assault, with allegations that the defendant had unlawfully attacked another individual with intent to cause significant harm. The evidence presented included witness testimonies, CCTV footage, and forensic evidence from the scene. The defendant pleaded not guilty, asserting self-defence and claiming that the attack was provoked by the victim.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of statutory provisions regarding self-defence under the Crimes Act 1958. The court needed to determine whether the defendant's actions were proportionate to the threat perceived and whether the defendant had a reasonable belief that he was acting in self-defence. The court also had to assess the credibility of the defendant’s testimony and the evidence provided by both parties. The defence argued that the defendant acted out of necessity to prevent serious harm, while the prosecution contended that the force used was excessive and not justified under the circumstances.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and the applicable legal principles. It concluded that the defendant’s actions were not proportionate to the perceived threat and that there was no reasonable belief that self-defence was necessary. The court found the defendant’s claim of self-defence to be implausible given the circumstances and the evidence presented. Consequently, the court found the defendant guilty of aggravated assault. The final orders of the court included a sentence that was to be determined in a subsequent sentencing hearing.

Orders