R v Davis, Smith and Charnock - [2016] NSWDC 130

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Davis, Smith and Charnock [2016] NSWDC 130
Hearing dates: 09/06/2016
Decision date: 10 June 2016
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Davis:
Count 1 - CONVICTED: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months with a non parole period being 1 year
Count 2 - CONVICTED: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years in 2 months with a non parole period of 1 year
Smith:
Taking into account a matter on a Form 1 - CONVICTED: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non parole period of 2 years and 1 month.
Charnock: Stood over for sentence on 15/07/2016.

Catchwords: Criminal - Sentence, recklessly wound, recklessly cause grievous bodily harm, joint criminal enterprise, parity, domestic dispute, psychological reports, prior good character, special circumstances, Form 1 matters.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Attorney-General’s Application No 1 of 2002 [2002] 56 NSWLR 147
DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Mill v R [1988] 166CLR 59
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Pearce v R (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
Yardley v Betts [1979] 22 SASR 108
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
R v Zang [2004] NSWCCA 358
Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown
Matthew Darrol Davis - Offender
Rebecca Joy Smith – Offender
Daniel Keith Charnock - Offender
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Saldharwal - Crown
Mr Glisson SC - Davis
Mr Doig - Smith
Mr Winch - Charnock

File Number(s): 2014/00244721: 2014/00244791: 2014/00247473

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…

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 130
Case: [2016] NSWDC 130
Decision Date: 10 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, Davis, Smith and Charnock, were involved in a domestic dispute that resulted in a series of criminal charges against them. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Davis was charged with recklessly wounding and recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, Smith was charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, and Charnock was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm. The case involved a joint criminal enterprise and issues of parity, special circumstances, and prior good character.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentences for each of the appellants, taking into account the nature of the offences, the role of each appellant in the crime, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The court considered the psychological reports of the appellants, their prior good character, and any special circumstances that may have been relevant. The court also had to consider a Form 1 matter in relation to Smith's sentence.

The court found that Davis was guilty of recklessly wounding and recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. The court found that Smith was guilty of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. The court found that Charnock was guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm. The court found that the appellants had acted together in a joint criminal enterprise and that the sentences should reflect this. The court also found that the psychological reports and prior good character of the appellants were relevant mitigating factors. The court sentenced Davis to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year for the first count, and 3 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 1 year for the second count. Smith was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 1 month, taking into account the Form 1 matter. Charnock was stood over for sentence.

The court ordered that Davis be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 1 year for the first count, and 3 years and 2 months with a non-parole period of 1 year for the second count. Smith was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 1 month. Charnock was stood over for sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Davis:

Count 1 - CONVICTED: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months with a non parole period being 1 year

Count 2 - CONVICTED: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years in 2 months with a non parole period of 1 year

Smith:

Taking into account a matter on a Form 1 - CONVICTED: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non parole period of 2 years and 1 month.

Charnock: Stood over for sentence on 15/07/2016.

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 130
Hearing dates:	09/06/2016
Decision date:	10 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Davis: Count 1 - CONVICTED: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months with a non parole period being 1 year Count 2 - CONVICTED: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years in 2 months with a non parole period of 1 year Smith: Taking into account a matter on a Form 1 - CONVICTED: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months with a non parole period of 2 years and 1 month. Charnock: Stood over for sentence on 15/07/2016.
Catchwords:	Criminal - Sentence, recklessly wound, recklessly cause grievous bodily harm, joint criminal enterprise, parity, domestic dispute, psychological reports, prior good character, special circumstances, Form 1 matters.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Attorney-General’s Application No 1 of 2002 [2002] 56 NSWLR 147 DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Mill v R [1988] 166CLR 59 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 Pearce v R (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 Yardley v Betts [1979] 22 SASR 108 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17 R v Zang [2004] NSWCCA 358
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown Matthew Darrol Davis - Offender Rebecca Joy Smith – Offender Daniel Keith Charnock - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Saldharwal - Crown Mr Glisson SC - Davis Mr Doig - Smith Mr Winch - Charnock
File Number(s):	2014/00244721: 2014/00244791: 2014/00247473