Legal Research
Cases
R v Castles

R v Castles

Case [2005] NSWCCA 79 14 March 2005

Sentencing

Mens Rea & Intention

Plea of Guilty

Special Circumstances

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
152 A Crim R 277

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION:
R v Castles [2005] NSWCCA 79

HEARING DATE(S): 25 November 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:

14 March 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Santow JA at 1; Bell J at 40; Howie J at 41

DECISION:
(1) Grant leave to appeal; ; (2) Allow the appeal and quash the sentence imposed in the District Court. In lieu thereof specify a non-parole period of one year and eight months to commence on 12 November 2003. The balance of the term of the sentence is twelve months. Direct the applicant's release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period on 11 July 2005.

CATCHWORDS:
SENTENCE - leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence - whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive - whether Court should intervene to impose a lower sentence - whether there was error in the treatment of plea of guilty - whether there was error in the dealing with the principle of general deterrence - whether there should have been a finding of special circumstances - whether this Court should itself consider special circumstances - whether relatively low intelligence of applicant taken into account.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900 s112(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s21A, s33
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s5(1)(c)

CASES CITED:
R v Crombie [1999] NSWCCA 297
R v Dorsett [2002] NSWCCA 326
R v Johnstone [2004] NSWCCA 307
R v Kay [2004] NSWCCA 130
R v Matthews [2004] NSWCCA 112
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Proud [2002] NSWCCA 219
R v Radic (2001) 122 A Crim R 70
Scognamiglio v R (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Shaw [2001] NSWCCA 44
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 at [86]
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225
R v Tayfun, [2001] NSWCCA 417
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Wahabzadah [2001] NSWCCA 253

PARTIES:
Mark John CASTLES (applicant/ appellant)
Regina (opponent/respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/2217

COUNSEL:
C SMITH (applicant/ appellant)
D ARNOTT (opponent/ respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor (applicant/ appellant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/31/0467

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Armitage DCJ

2004/2217 CCAP

SANTOW JA
BELL J
HOWIE J
14 MARCH 2005

REGINA v Mark John CASTLES

Judgment

1 SANTOW JA:

INTRODUCTION

Criminal Appeal Act

2 The applicant entered a plea of guilty to the offence of break enter and steal occurring 4 February 2003. He was charged under s112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. Upon sentencing, the applicant requested the Court to take into account a further offence (occurring 1 April 1998) of…

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 Castles

Details

AGLC: R v Castles [2005] NSWCCA 79
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 79
Decision Date: 14 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Castles, the appellant was convicted of murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed. The primary issues for the court to determine were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the court should intervene to impose a lower sentence. Additionally, the court examined whether there was any error in the treatment of the plea of guilty, the principle of general deterrence, and the consideration of special circumstances such as the appellant's relatively low intelligence.

The court analysed the sentence in light of the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the case. It noted the appellant's guilty plea, which resulted in a discount to the sentence. The court found no error in the treatment of the plea of guilty or in the consideration of general deterrence. It considered the principle of special circumstances and noted the appellant's relatively low intelligence but determined that it did not warrant a different sentence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not find any grounds to intervene.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal against the severity of the sentence. The court held that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances and did not find any error in the trial judge's consideration of special circumstances or the principle of general deterrence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant intervention. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the severity of the sentence, affirming the life sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders