R v Boyd

Case [2022] NSWCCA 120 10 June 2022

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: R v Boyd [2022] NSWCCA 120
Hearing dates: 11 May 2022
Date of orders: 10 June 2022
Decision date: 10 June 2022
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Rothman J at [2];
Dhanji J at [215]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Crown appeal against sentence – manifest inadequacy – sentence was manifestly inadequate – insufficient accumulation for separate offence of assault over unrelated drug offences – no issue of principle requires intervention – “residual” discretion to intervene refused.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 59
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 68A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 21A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D
Drugs (Misuse and Trafficking) Act 1985 (NSW), s 25

Cases Cited:
Abdul v R [2019] NSWCCA 18
Assam v R [2019] NSWCCA 12
Betts v The Queen (2016) 258 CLR 420; [2016] HCA 25
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; [1990] HCA 18
CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) (2015) 258 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Cullen v R [2014] NSWCCA 162
Deakin v The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 367; [1984] HCA 31
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 243 FLR 28; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Dunshea v R [2016] NSWCCA 244
Edmonds v R [2022] NSWCCA 103
Faraj v R [2022] NSWCCA 31
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293; [1977] HCA 44
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Huang v R [2017] NSWCCA 312
Jackson v R [2019] NSWCCA 101
Kane v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 250
Leach v The Queen (2008) 183 A Crim R 1; [2008] NSWCCA 73
Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
Matu v R [2019] NSWCCA 23
McKinnon v R [2020] NSWCCA 106
Naberezhnov v R [2021] NSWCCA 142
Piao v R [2019] NSWCCA 154
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26
R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R vHernando (2002) 136 A Crim R 451; [2002] NSWCCA 489
R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241
R v Kazzi [2008] NSWCCA 77
R v Osenkowski (1982) 5 A Crim R 394
R v Thomson [2016] NSWCCA 56
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168; [2004] NSWCCA 131
R v Yiu; R v Yau [2018] NSWCCA 155
R v Yucel [2000] NSWCCA 532
See v R [2020] NSWCCA 272
Shi v R [2017] NSWCCA 183
Tamer v R [2020] NSWCCA 333
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465;

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 Boyd

Details

AGLC: R v Boyd [2022] NSWCCA 120
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 120
Decision Date: 10 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, convicted of drug offences, appealed against the sentence imposed by the court. The Crown, dissatisfied with the sentence, sought an appeal, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was so inadequate that it warranted intervention, and if so, whether the principles of the case law required the court to intervene.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, considering the principles of sentencing for drug offences and whether the separate offence of assault warranted a different consideration. The court examined the principles established in previous cases and whether the sentence in this case deviated significantly from these principles, warranting appellate intervention. The court also had to consider the discretion available to intervene in the absence of a clear principle requiring such intervention.

The court found that the sentence, while lower than the Crown’s expectations, did not deviate significantly from established principles for drug offences. The court acknowledged the severity of the drug-related crimes but did not find the sentence to be manifestly inadequate. Additionally, the court observed that the separate assault offence, while serious, did not warrant a significantly higher sentence. Consequently, the court concluded that the Crown’s appeal against the sentence was not successful and dismissed the appeal.

No further orders were made by the court. The sentence imposed by the trial judge remained in effect.

Orders