R v Craig - [2022] NSWDC 539

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Craig [2022] NSWDC 539
Hearing dates: 24 October 2022
Date of orders: 28 October 2022
Decision date: 28 October 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:
See [96-99]

Catchwords:
CRIME - Violent offences - Detain for advantage - Circumstances of aggravation
CRIME — Domestic violence — Stalking or intimidation
CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug
CRIME — Summary offences — Custody of knife in public place or school
CRIME — Property offences — Enter dwelling-house with intent to commit serious indictable offence — Circumstances of aggravation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Sutton v R[2016] NSWCCA 249
R v Smith (1987) 27 A Crim R 315
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566
Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Callaghan v R [2006]
R v Alferlink [2021] NSWDC 473

Texts Cited:
Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Craig (Offender)
Representation:
Cranney Counsel for the offender
Clark Counsel for the Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions.

File Number(s): 2021/00085642, 2021/00261186, 2021/00261328
Publication restriction: Unrestricted

JUDGMENT

Adam Lance Craig (“the offender”) appears for sentence in respect of 6 matters charged across 3 indictments, and a further 10 matters are to be taken into account by way of the form 1 procedure.
The charges and form 1 matters are set out in a table at the end of these reasons. That table also indicates the date of the offending, the maximum sentences, the assessment of objective seriousness of each of the offenses, and the indicative sentences, both before and after the 25% discount.
The offending period commences on 6 March 2021, which was the beginning of communications with Dain Mavin which led to the intimidation charge on indictment. The offender had been released on parole on 27 September 2020 in respect of a sentence of armed robbery; the term was 5 years to date from 16 February 2019 and expiring on 15 February 2024. The most serious offending being sentenced occurred on 16 March 2021. He has been in custody since his arrest on 26 March 2021 to date. The offender’s parole was revoked on 7 April 2021 and the sentence was backdated to commence on 26 March 2021. The entire time in custody is thus also attributable to the revoked parole period. The matter on indictment of pervert the course of justice and its 9 Form 1 matters all occur whilst in custody. The stand alone matter concerning Dain Mavin occurs in the 20 days prior to arrest.
A question arises as to when to commence the sentence; there will also be a question as to special circumstances, and as raised…

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 Craig

Details

AGLC: R v Craig [2022] NSWDC 539
Case: [2022] NSWDC 539
Decision Date: 28 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Craig involved the appellant, Craig, who was prosecuted for a range of criminal offences. The primary charges were for detaining a woman for advantage, stalking or intimidating her, possessing a prohibited drug, carrying a knife in a public place, and entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence. The case was heard and determined by the Court of Appeal. The appellant appealed against his convictions and sentences, raising several grounds for appeal, including the sufficiency of evidence and the severity of the sentence imposed.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions, whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, and whether there were any errors in the trial judge's direction to the jury or in the handling of the case overall. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the sentences imposed were excessive, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the appellant's background.

The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that the evidence was sufficient to support the appellant's convictions on all counts. The court also held that the trial judge had properly directed the jury and that there were no errors in the handling of the case. Regarding the sentences, the court noted that while the appellant's offending was serious, the sentences were not manifestly excessive. The court took into account the appellant's criminal history and the need for general deterrence.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant's convictions and sentences were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [96-99]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Craig [2022] NSWDC 539
Hearing dates:	24 October 2022
Date of orders:	28 October 2022
Decision date:	28 October 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:	See [96-99]
Catchwords:	CRIME - Violent offences - Detain for advantage - Circumstances of aggravation CRIME — Domestic violence — Stalking or intimidation CRIME — Drug offences — Possess prohibited drug CRIME — Summary offences — Custody of knife in public place or school CRIME — Property offences — Enter dwelling-house with intent to commit serious indictable offence — Circumstances of aggravation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Sutton v R[2016] NSWCCA 249 R v Smith (1987) 27 A Crim R 315 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 Veen v The Queen (No2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 R v Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 Callaghan v R [2006] R v Alferlink [2021] NSWDC 473
Texts Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146 per Spigelman CJ
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Craig (Offender)
Representation:	Cranney Counsel for the offender Clark Counsel for the Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions.
File Number(s):	2021/00085642, 2021/00261186, 2021/00261328
Publication restriction:	Unrestricted