Legal Research
Cases
R v James

R v James

Case [2017] NSWCCA 287 30 November 2017

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Manifestly Inadequate Sentence

Totality Principle

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v James [2017] NSWCCA 287
Hearing dates: 16 November 2017
Date of orders: 30 November 2017
Decision date: 30 November 2017
Before: Chief Justice Bathurst at [1];
Hoeben CJ at CL at [2];
Button J at [81]
Decision:
(1)   The Crown appeal is allowed.
(2)   The sentence imposed by Delaney ADCJ at Parramatta on 31 July 2017 is quashed.
(3)   In lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 12 years and 3 months, commencing 18 November 2015 and expiring 17 February 2028, with a non-parole period of 8 years, expiring 17 November 2023.

Catchwords: CROWN APPEAL – manufacture a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and possession of unauthorised pistols – mathematical error in calculation of sentence – whether sentence actually passed manifestly inadequate – whether lack of consistency in sentences imposed for possession of unauthorised pistols – whether sentence properly accumulated to comply with requirements of totality – manifest inadequacy established – whether residual discretion should apply – Crown appeal allowed – need to re-sentence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 193C
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 – s 3A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5D
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) – s 24
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) – s 7
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Cahyadi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Caristo v R [2011] NSWCCA 7
CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346
Dang v R [2013] NSWCCA 246; 237 A Crim R 522
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions v Dalgleish (a pseudonym) [2017] HCA 41
Everett v The Queen [1994] HCA 49; 181 CLR 295
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; 137 CLR 293
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
House v the King [1936] HCA 40; 55 CLR 499
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Lehn v R [2016] NSWCCA 255
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
R v Janceski [2005] NSWCCA 288
Taysavang v R; Lee v R [2017] NSWCCA 146
Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina – Applicant Crown
Matthew Fredrick James – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
B Baker – Applicant Crown
Dr GD Woods QC – Respondent
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Applicant Crown
Legal Aid NSW – Respondent

File Number(s): 2015/341136
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

31 July 2017

Before:

Delaney ADCJ

File Number(s):

2015/341136

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree…

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 James

Details

AGLC: R v James [2017] NSWCCA 287
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 287
Decision Date: 30 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v James involved the appellant who was convicted of manufacturing a large commercial quantity of methylamphetamine and possessing unauthorised pistols. The appeal to the court arose from the appellant's challenge to the sentence imposed on him. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the sentence actually passed was manifestly inadequate, whether there was a lack of consistency in sentences imposed for similar offences, and whether the sentence was properly accumulated to comply with the principle of totality. Additionally, the court considered whether the residual discretion of the trial judge should apply in light of the identified errors.

The court found that there was a mathematical error in the calculation of the appellant's sentence, which rendered the sentence actually passed manifestly inadequate. The court further noted that there was a lack of consistency in the sentences imposed for possession of unauthorised pistols. The court held that the sentence did not properly comply with the principle of totality. Consequently, the court concluded that the residual discretion should not apply in this instance. As a result, the Crown's appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted back to the lower court for re-sentencing.

The court made no further orders beyond the allowance of the Crown's appeal and the necessity for the appellant to be re-sentenced. This decision underscores the importance of accurate sentencing calculations and the need for consistency in judicial decisions relating to similar offences.

Orders