R v Davis, Smith and Charnock - [2016] NSWDC 427

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Davis, Smith and Charnock [2016] NSWDC 427
Hearing dates: 09/06/2016
Date of orders: 10 June 2016
Decision date: 10 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
M Davis - Convicted: Count 1, sentence to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year.
Count 2, sentence to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 2 months with a non-parole period of 1 year.
R Smith – Convicted: sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 1 month.

Catchwords: Criminal – Sentence, recklessly wound, recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm,
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Mill v R [1988] 166CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
R v Wilson [2005] NSWCCA 219
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Yardley v Betts [1979] 22 SASR 108
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Matthew Darrol Davis - Offender
Rebecca Joy Smith – Offender
Daniel Keith Charnock - Offender
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Sabhakwill – Director of Public Prosecutions
Mr Glisson QC – M Davis
Mr Doig – R Smith
Mr Winch – D Charnock
Solicitors:

File Number(s): 2014/002447212014/002447912014/00247473

sentence

HIS HONOUR: Matthew Darrol Davis, Rebecca Joy Smith and Daniel Keith Charnock appear today for sentence in relation to offences which I will outline in a moment. Unfortunately, I cannot sentence Mr Charnock today. The proceedings relating to these sentence matters started yesterday, sometime after 10.30, after I had given a judgment in another case, and they proceeded throughout the day, up until 4pm. There was a great deal of material provided to the Court, not only as to the Crown case but as to the defence cases. In fact, I took the opportunity, having viewed some CCTV footage, to undertake a view at the location of the offences for which the prisoners are to be sentenced. I have reflected upon the matter overnight and I have concluded I can sentence Mr Davis and Ms Smith today but, for the reasons which I outlined to the learned counsel for Mr Charnock and learned counsel for the Crown, as well as the other two learned counsel, I cannot proceed with Mr Charnock’s matter today. Because there is so much of the case concerning Mr Charnock interconnected with the cases of the other two people, particularly Mr Davis, having regard to the evidence including the facts that have been tendered, many of the remarks I make now are obviously relevant to and will be considered in the sentencing of Mr Charnock at a later time. In due course I will be adjourning Mr Charnock’s matter to obtain the remarks of her Honour, Judge English. Even if I got them today,…

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 Davis, Smith and Charnock

Details

AGLC: R v Davis, Smith and Charnock [2016] NSWDC 427
Case: [2016] NSWDC 427
Decision Date: 10 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, three defendants, R Davis, R Smith, and Charnock, were convicted of various criminal charges, including recklessly wounding and recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm. The case revolved around an incident that occurred on a public street where the defendants assaulted a victim, causing significant injuries. The primary legal issues the court had to address included the appropriate sentencing for each defendant, taking into account the severity of the crimes and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for punishment and deterrence, while also weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors for each defendant. For M Davis, the court found that the offences warranted a significant custodial sentence but also recognised mitigating factors such as remorse and the impact of alcohol. The court imposed a sentence of 2 years 6 months for the first count, with a non-parole period of 1 year, and 3 years 2 months for the second count, with a non-parole period of 1 year. For R Smith, the court determined a more severe sentence, given the higher level of culpability, resulting in a term of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 1 month. The court emphasised the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community.

In conclusion, the court delivered sentences that reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the respective roles of each defendant in the incident. The final orders were that M Davis was convicted on Count 1 with a sentence of 2 years 6 months imprisonment and a non-parole period of 1 year, and on Count 2 with a sentence of 3 years 2 months imprisonment and a non-parole period of 1 year. R Smith was convicted and sentenced to a term of 4 years 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years 1 month.

Orders

Orders of the court

M Davis - Convicted: Count 1, sentence to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year.

Count 2, sentence to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 2 months with a non-parole period of 1 year.

R Smith – Convicted: sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 1 month.

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 Davis, Smith and Charnock [2016] NSWDC 427
Hearing dates:	09/06/2016
Date of orders:	10 June 2016
Decision date:	10 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	M Davis - Convicted: Count 1, sentence to a term of imprisonment of 2 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year. Count 2, sentence to a term of imprisonment of 3 years 2 months with a non-parole period of 1 year. R Smith – Convicted: sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 1 month.
Catchwords:	Criminal – Sentence, recklessly wound, recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm,
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Mill v R [1988] 166CLR 59 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121 R v Thomas [2007] NSWCCA 269 R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8 R v Wilson [2005] NSWCCA 219 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17 Yardley v Betts [1979] 22 SASR 108
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown Matthew Darrol Davis - Offender Rebecca Joy Smith – Offender Daniel Keith Charnock - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Sabhakwill – Director of Public Prosecutions Mr Glisson QC – M Davis Mr Doig – R Smith Mr Winch – D Charnock Solicitors:
File Number(s):	2014/002447212014/002447912014/00247473