R v Burton

Case [2020] NSWDC 246


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Burton [2020] NSWDC 246
Hearing dates: 26 May 2020
Date of orders: 26 May 2020
Decision date: 26 May 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 40

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – severity appeal – assault occasioning actual bodily harm offence – impact of appellant’s mental health on the offending and the sentence imposed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 59
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 8, 21A
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW), s 32
Cases Cited: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr J Burton
Representation: Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Peninsula Law for the appellant
File Number(s): 2019/327888
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Local Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Citation:
Unreported
Date of Decision:
12 February 2020
Before:
Magistrate C M Franklin
File Number(s):
2019/327888

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

  1. This is a severity appeal from the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the Wyong Local Court on 12 February 2020 that he serve a Community Correction Order (‘CCO’) for a period of 2 years.

  2. The appellant entered a plea to the charge that on 18 October 2019, at Killarney Vale, he assaulted Catherine Britt, thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to her, to wit, pushing her to the ground causing laceration to her right elbow (requiring 5 stitches) and a graze to her right ankle; this conduct being contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW).

  3. The maximum punishment for this offence, if tried on indictment, is 5 years’ imprisonment. In the Local Court, the maximum punishment is 2 years’ imprisonment and/or $5,500 fine.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDING

  1. Before the Court was the Facts Sheet before the learned Magistrate. It was included in the Crown’s severity appeal bundle (Exhibit 1). No objection was taken to its contents. There were no other facts before the Court – agreed or otherwise – to establish the circumstances of the offending.

  2. The Facts Sheet discloses that:

  1. the appellant is a self-employed owner or operator of a building company and has 4 dependent children;

  2. the appellant pays $530 weekly rent and has variable income typical of a small business operator;

  3. the appellant has no prior violent history;

  4. the appellant and Ms Britt, the victim of the assault, were neighbours. Prior to 18 October 2019, they had had a range of prior arguments and neighbourly disputes;

  5. at about or shortly up to 1:40pm on 18 October 2019, the victim accused the appellant of moving tree branches from his driveway onto her driveway. They were situated upon the roadway of their respective premises, outside their homes. This caused a heated verbal argument about the tree branches;

  6. suddenly, when only 1 or 2 metres away from the victim, the appellant suddenly moved…

Continue reading R v Burton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Burton [2020] NSWDC 246
Case
[2020] NSWDC 246
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Burton, the appellant, who was previously convicted of an assault occasioning actual bodily harm offence, appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed on him. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant submitted that his mental health issues, which were not fully considered at the time of sentencing, should have mitigated the severity of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge failed to appropriately consider the appellant's mental health issues in determining the appropriate severity of the sentence, and whether this constituted a significant error of law that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court was required to examine whether the appellant's mental health issues, if properly considered, would have warranted a lesser sentence.

The court considered that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently address the appellant's mental health issues, which were significant factors in the offending behaviour. The court held that the sentencing judge should have undertaken a more detailed assessment of the appellant's mental health and its impact on the offending, and that this omission constituted a significant error of law. The court found that if the sentencing judge had properly considered the appellant's mental health, it was likely that a lesser sentence would have been imposed. Accordingly, the court ordered a reduction in the severity of the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 40

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.