S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) Solicitor for Respondent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
06/21/3159
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Walmsely DCJ
2007/1016
MASON P JAMES J HISLOP J
Thursday 2 August 2007
REGINA v Deng Mading DENG
Judgment
1 MASON P: I agree with James J.
2 JAMES J: This is an appeal by the Crown pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act against a sentence imposed on the respondent Deng Mading Deng by his Honour judge Walmsley SC in the District Court on 4 April 2007. There had already been hearings of the proceedings on sentence on 13 November 2006 and 30 March 2007.
3 For an offence of malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm committed on 5 February 2006, to which the respondent had pleaded guilty, Judge Walmsley sentenced the respondent to a non-parole period of imprisonment for two years commencing on 13 April 2007, with a balance of the term of one year, and ordered that the sentence be served by way of periodic detention. The Crown appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent was instituted on 19 April 2007.
4 Malicious wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm is an offence under s 33 of the Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for twenty-five years. Under Div 1A of Pt 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act there is a standard non-parole period for the offence of seven years.
The Sentencing Judge’s remarks on sentence
5 In the proceedings on sentence a statement of agreed facts was admitted into evidence and in his remarks on sentence the sentencing judge stated the facts of the offence by repeating almost verbatim the contents of the agreed statement of facts. I will now set out those paragraphs of his Honour’s remarks on sentence. The parts which I have placed in brackets were comments by his Honour on the agreed facts.
“The facts which give rise to the matter, as set out in the statement of agreed facts,…
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 Deng
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Deng [2007] NSWCCA 216
Case
[2007] NSWCCA 216
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Deng was heard in a criminal court where the defendant, Deng, was charged with various criminal offences. The specifics of the charges were not detailed in the summary, but it is clear that the matter involved a serious criminal prosecution. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Deng following his conviction.
The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate punishment for Deng, considering the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed. The court had to weigh various factors, including the severity of the offences, Deng's criminal history, his background, and any mitigating circumstances. The court also had to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the crime and aligned with sentencing principles and guidelines.
The court conducted a detailed analysis of the evidence and submissions presented. It considered the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and Deng's personal circumstances. The court determined that the sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crimes while also taking into account any mitigating factors. After careful deliberation, the court imposed a sentence that it deemed appropriate under the circumstances. The court's decision was based on a thorough application of legal principles and an assessment of the relevant factors.