R v Crimmins

Case [2018] NSWDC 482

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Crimmins [2018] NSWDC 482
Hearing dates: 18 October 2018
Date of orders: 18 October 2018
Decision date: 18 October 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

See [86]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – recklessly causing grievous bodily harm
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571
Suksa-Ngacharoen v R [2018] NSWCCA 142
Texts Cited: None
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Maxwell Crimmins (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr J O’Sullivan (Offender)

  Solicitors:
ODPP (Crown)
Legal Aid (Offender)
File Number(s): 2017/248533
Publication restriction: None

Introduction

  1. The offender appears before the Court today for sentence in respect of a charge of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm in contravention of s 35(2) of the Crimes Act. The charge has a maximum applicable penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 4 years imprisonment. Those are the legislative guideposts which assist the Court in determining how to approach the sentence and the seriousness of the offending. In my view the seriousness of the offending is substantial and the injuries arising from the conduct of the offender have been catastrophic.

Procedural History

  1. I note that the offending took place on 28 May 2017 and that the Offender, largely through his own conduct, was not arrested by the police until 15 August 2017. He was committed from sentence from the Wyong Local Court on 3 July 2018 and has spent no time in custody in respect of this matter. It is submitted that he is entitled to a discount on account of his guilty plea, which I will return to in a moment.

  2. There are no matters on a Form 1 or a s 166 certificate that the Court needs to consider.

  3. I note that there is a co-offender by the name of Rowan Ritchens who has a trial listed 18 March 2019 but for different offences, namely three counts of pervert the course of justice. So there is no need for the Court to embark upon a consideration of parity, particularly as Mr Ritchens has not yet faced trial and any sentence to be imposed if guilty is unknown.

Evidence on Sentence

  1. The Crown relied upon the following material at the sentence hearing:

  1. the Crown Bundle (Exhibit A);

  2. Pre-Sentence Report authored by Jamie Rochford dated 12 September 2018 (Exhibit B); and

  3. the Victim Impact Statement, written by Nathan Joyce and read by his mother in Court today (Exhibit C).

  1. The Offender relied upon the Offender’s Bundle (Exhibit 1), comprising a report from a psychologist Clayton Rogers dated 15 October 2018, which I will come to in greater detail shortly.

  2. Next is a letter addressed, “To Whom it May Concern” from Craig Miller, the plant manager of JBS Australia. It simply refers to the offender’s employment history and a number of favourable qualities. It makes no reference at all to the offending for which the offender is before the Court…

Continue reading R v Crimmins

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Crimmins [2018] NSWDC 482
Case
[2018] NSWDC 482
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crimmins involved the appellant, who was convicted of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to a police officer. The appeal focused on the sentencing phase, specifically the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of the appropriate sentence for the offence.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had made an error in assessing the gravity of the offence and the appropriate sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive, given the mitigating factors present in the case. The Crown contended that the sentence was appropriate, considering the nature of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles of sentencing and the gravity of the offence. The court found that the trial judge had correctly identified the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and had given appropriate weight to each. The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge's sentence was within the range of acceptable sentences for the offence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were to dismiss the appeal and confirm the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [86]

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.