Legal Research
Cases
R v Caldwell

R v Caldwell

Case [2016] NSWCCA 55 19 April 2016

Criminal Liability

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 Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55
Hearing dates: 18 March 2016
Decision date: 19 April 2016
Before: Beazley P at [1];
Harrison J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
1. Crown appeal against sentence allowed.
2. Sentence imposed in the District Court on 28 August 2015 quashed.
3. Respondent sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years with a non-parole period of 6 years. The sentence is to date from 27 October 2013. The non-parole period will expire on 26 October 2019 and the total term will expire on 26 October 2023. The respondent will become eligible for release on parole at the end of the non-parole period.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence - Crown appeal – aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence and armed robbery – multiple offences of considerable seriousness – failure to take into account that offences committed while on conditional liberty – aggregate sentence manifestly inadequate –insufficient degree of notional accumulation of indicative sentences – failure of aggregate sentence to reflect overall criminality
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 3A, Pt 3 Div 3
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5D(1)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; 317 ALR 308
Delaney v R; R v Delaney [2013] NSWCCA 150; 230 A Crim R 581
Galvin v R [2015] NSWCCA 88
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v Stoupe [2015] NSWCCA 175
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Truong v R; R v Le; Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Applicant)
William James Caldwell (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms S Dowling SC (Crown)
R Webb (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
P Kulisiewicz

File Number(s): 2013/324985
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

28 August 2015

Before:

Woodburne SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/324985

Judgment

BEAZLEY P: I agree with R A Hulme J
HARRISON J: I agree with R A Hulme J.
R A HULME J: William James Caldwell (“the respondent”) was sentenced by her Honour Judge Woodburne SC in the District Court at Sydney in respect of five offences with a further three offences being taken into account.
The respondent had been arrested on 27 October 2013. He pleaded guilty to the offences in December 2014. The sentence hearing took place on 4 June and 17 July 2015 and her Honour passed sentence on 28 August 2015.
Her Honour imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 6 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 8 months. It was backdated to the day of the respondent’s…

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 Caldwell

Details

AGLC: R v Caldwell [2016] NSWCCA 55
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 55
Decision Date: 19 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Caldwell involved the respondent, who was sentenced by a trial judge in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence, and two charges of armed robbery. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the aggregate sentence reflected the overall criminality of the respondent.

The appeal before the court involved the appropriate sentence to be imposed upon the respondent. The legal issues that needed to be decided included whether the trial judge had failed to take into account the respondent's conditional liberty status at the time of the offending, whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly inadequate, and whether the sentence failed to reflect the overall criminality of the respondent.

The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the respondent's conditional liberty status at the time of the offending, which was a relevant factor in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also found that the aggregate sentence did not reflect the overall criminality of the respondent, as the sentence did not adequately accumulate the indicative sentences for the multiple offences committed. The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and ordered that the case be remitted to the County Court for re-sentencing.

In conclusion, the court found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate and failed to reflect the overall criminality of the respondent. The court ordered that the case be remitted to the County Court for re-sentencing.

Orders