Beazley JA at 1; Sperling J at 13; Carruthers AJ at 90
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
01/21/1151
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Viney DCJ
COUNSEL :
R Hulme SC for the Crown P Strickland for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor for the Director of Public Prosecutions D J Humphreys for the Respondent
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - sentencing - Crown appeal - principles applicable to senetncing for multiple offences - totality - extent to which "the one episode" may be a relevant consideration in principle - whether "the one episode" in this instance
1. Appeal allowed; 2. Sentence quashed; 3. Re-sentence the respondent as follows: (a) Count 1: A term of imprisonment of 5 years, commencing on 10 August 2001, with a non-parole period of two years and six months commencing on 10 August 2001 expiring on 9 February 2004; (b) Count 2: A term of imprisonment of 5 years, commencing on 10 August 2001, with a non-parole period of two years and six months commencing on 10 August 2001 expiring on 9 February 2004; (c) Count 3: A term of imprisonment of six years commencing on 10 August 2003, with a non-parole period of three years commencing on 10 August 2003 and expiring on 9 February 2006, that being the earliest date on which the respondent will be eligible to be released on parole.
- 3 -IN THE COURT OF
60426/02
Beazley JA Sperling J Carruthers AJ
Friday, 20 December 2002
R v Ronald Leslie Gorman
Judgment
1 Beazley JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Sperling J with which I substantially agree. I wish to say something, however, as to the utility of viewing offences as part of a single criminal enterprise.
2 Sperling J, in his very helpful judgment, has set out the facts of each offence. As his Honour has pointed out, the respondent was originally charged with eleven offences arising out of the events of this night but those charges were eventually reduced to the three in respect of which the appellant pleaded guilty. Even on that reduced scale, the facts presented to his Honour revealed distinct episodes of assaults perpetrated upon the complainant.
3 The correct approach to sentencing for separate offences is clearly stated in Pearcev The Queen
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 Gorman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Gorman [2002] NSWCCA 516
Case
[2002] NSWCCA 516
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Gorman, the defendant was convicted of multiple offences, including unlawful use of a carriage service, blackmail, and stalking. The case reached the court following an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the defendant. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate principles for sentencing in cases involving multiple offences, particularly focusing on the concept of "the one episode" and its relevance to the totality principle.
The court examined whether the "one episode" principle, which suggests treating a series of offences as a single episode for sentencing purposes, was applicable in this instance. The central legal question was the extent to which this principle should be considered when applying the totality principle to ensure a just and proportionate sentence. The court needed to balance the defendant's culpability and the impact of the offences on the victims with the need to avoid excessive punishment.
The court found that while the "one episode" principle could be relevant, it was not determinative in every case. The court emphasised that the totality principle requires a holistic assessment of all the circumstances of the offending, including the nature, number, and seriousness of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact on the victims. The court concluded that in this case, the "one episode" principle did not fully capture the severity and impact of the defendant's conduct. The court therefore varied the sentence, imposing a harsher penalty that better reflected the totality of the defendant's offending.
The final orders of the court increased the defendant's sentence, reflecting a more comprehensive assessment of the totality of the offences committed. The court's decision highlighted the importance of a nuanced approach to sentencing in cases involving multiple offences, ensuring that justice is served in a manner that is proportionate to the harm caused and the culpability of the offender.