Spigelman CJ at 1; Allsop P at 2; Kirby J at 70; Howie J at 71; Johnson J at 2
DECISION:
1. Orders already made on 9 December 2009: 1. Allow the Crown appeal. 2. Quash the sentence imposed by the District Court on 24 April 2008. 3. In lieu thereof, impose a sentence of imprisonment for 18 months to commence 9 December 2009. 4. Order that the execution of the sentence be suspended for 18 months upon Mr Carroll entering upon a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months pursuant to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 12. 5. Application by Mr Carroll for leave to appeal against sentence refused. 2. Grant leave to amend the Crown's notice of appeal insofar as it was sought to add grounds 1, 2 and 3. 3. Refuse leave to amend the Crown's notice of appeal and insofar as it was sought to add grounds 4, 5 and 6. 4. Amend order 3 made on 9 December 2009 by removing the words "to commence 9 December 2009".
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - manslaughter - Crown appeal - double jeopardy - meaning of s 68A Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 - Constitutional validity of Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, s 68A - manifestly inadequate sentence - resentencing - objective seriousness of the offence - head butt causing death - general deterrence - alcohol-fuelled violence
[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 Carroll
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Carroll [2010] NSWCCA 55
Case
[2010] NSWCCA 55
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court was an appeal by the Crown against a sentence of imprisonment for manslaughter imposed on the defendant, Carroll. The dispute centred around whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the trial judge erred in considering the principle of double jeopardy when resentencing the defendant. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, s 68A, was valid and whether it contravened the principle of double jeopardy. The court also needed to determine whether the trial judge had erred in considering the principle of double jeopardy when determining the appropriate sentence. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.
In a unanimous decision, the court found that s 68A of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 was valid and did not contravene the principle of double jeopardy. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to consider the principle of double jeopardy in determining the appropriate sentence, as it was relevant to the sentencing process. The court further found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, given the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. As a result, the court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a resentencing hearing.
The final orders of the court included the quashing of the original sentence and the direction for a resentencing hearing to be held, taking into account the appropriate factors and principles relevant to the sentencing process. The court emphasised the importance of considering the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence when determining an appropriate sentence for manslaughter cases involving alcohol-fuelled violence.