R v Cranston - [2019] NSWDC 619

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cranston [2019] NSWDC 619
Hearing dates: 28 October 2019
Date of orders: 01 November 2019
Decision date: 01 November 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:
See paragraph 74 – 77.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – sentencing – common assault – domestic violence – assaulting police officers in the execution of duty and occasioning actual bodily harm – attempting to use an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence – subjective features – whether Bugmy considerations applicable – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act, 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) 1999, No. 2 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 515
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 244 CLR 571
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Kennedy [2008] NSWCCA 21
Killen [2005] NSWCCA 17
Ohanian [2017] NSWCCA 268
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Hamilton (1993) 66 A Crim R 575
TC [2009] NSWCCA 296
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr K Cranston
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms L Precup (Crown)
Ms C Wasley (Defence)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
Marsdens Law Group

File Number(s): 2017/332792
Publication restriction: Nil

Sentencing remarks

Background

On 2 November 2017, the offender was involved in a domestic quarrel with his partner. He and his partner resided with two daughters. The offender was intoxicated throughout as a result of the consumption of alcohol: he smelt of alcohol and his speech was slurred. The quarrel escalated into an act of domestic violence against the partner. The partner had the presence of mind to ask one of the daughters to call the police. Police officers arrived but this only enraged the offender. He engaged in a physical struggle and assaulted the police officers; before he was eventually detained.
On 20 May 2019, two days after a trial having commenced and after negotiations with the Crown, the offender entered pleas of guilty to the following six counts:

common assault [1] , pursuant to s 61 of the Crimes Act.
1. Given that it was committed against the offender’s then partner, it also constitutes a ‘domestic violence offence’

assaulting a police officer (LSC Craig), acting in the execution of her duty and occasioning actual bodily harm, pursuant to s 60(2) of the Crimes Act.

assaulting a police officer (Constable Gorgees), acting in the execution of her duty and occasioning actual bodily harm, pursuant to s 60(2) of the Crimes Act.

Attempting to use an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation, pursuant to s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act.

Choking Constable Gorgees and being reckless as to render her incapable of resistance, pursuant to s 37(1) of the Crimes Act.

Assaulting a police officer (SC Hollis), acting in the execution of his duty, pursuant to s 60(1) of the Crimes Act.

The maximum punishment for these offences and applicable standard non-parole periods for these offences are…

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 Cranston

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston [2019] NSWDC 619
Case: [2019] NSWDC 619
Decision Date: 01 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cranston involved the appellant, Mr. Cranston, who was convicted of various criminal offences including common assault, assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty, and occasioning actual bodily harm. The matter was brought before the court for sentencing, with specific consideration given to the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the appellant’s background and history of domestic violence. The case was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court, where the presiding judge was tasked with assessing the appropriate sentence in light of the statutory guidelines and the principles of criminal sentencing.

The central legal issues the court had to address involved the severity of the offences committed, the appellant’s prior criminal history, and the potential applicability of considerations related to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants, as per the case of Bugmy v The Queen. The court also had to consider whether any special circumstances existed that could influence the sentencing decision. The appellant’s legal team argued for a lesser sentence, highlighting mitigating factors such as the appellant’s background and the potential for rehabilitation. Conversely, the prosecution sought a sentence that adequately reflected the seriousness of the crimes committed.

The court thoroughly examined the subjective features of the case, including the nature of the offences, the harm caused, and the appellant's criminal history. It was noted that the offences were severe, involving violence against police officers and causing actual bodily harm. The court also considered the appellant’s history of domestic violence, which was a significant factor in determining the appropriate sentence. While the defence argued for the application of Bugmy considerations, the court concluded that these were not applicable in this instance as they pertain specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the possibility of rehabilitation, taking into account all the relevant factors and the principles of sentencing.

The final orders of the court, detailed in paragraphs 74 to 77, provided the specific sentencing outcome, including the length and nature of the custodial sentence and any additional requirements such as community service or rehabilitation programs. The court also addressed the need for ongoing monitoring and support to mitigate the risk of reoffending.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 74 – 77.

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 Cranston [2019] NSWDC 619
Hearing dates:	28 October 2019
Date of orders:	01 November 2019
Decision date:	01 November 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Abadee DCJ
Decision:	See paragraph 74 – 77.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – sentencing – common assault – domestic violence – assaulting police officers in the execution of duty and occasioning actual bodily harm – attempting to use an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence – subjective features – whether Bugmy considerations applicable – special circumstances.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act, 1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited:	Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) 1999, No. 2 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 515 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 244 CLR 571 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act Kennedy [2008] NSWCCA 21 Killen [2005] NSWCCA 17 Ohanian [2017] NSWCCA 268 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Hamilton (1993) 66 A Crim R 575 TC [2009] NSWCCA 296
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Mr K Cranston
Representation:	Counsel: Ms L Precup (Crown) Ms C Wasley (Defence) Solicitors: Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions Marsdens Law Group
File Number(s):	2017/332792
Publication restriction:	Nil