R v James Christiansen

Case [2020] NSWDC 904


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v James Christiansen [2020] NSWDC 904
Hearing dates: 1 December 2020
Date of orders: 1 December 2020
Decision date: 01 December 2020
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Orders at [79]

Catchwords:

CRIME – sentence – recklessly cause grievous bodily harm – provocation – defence of self and another

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 35

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5, 21A

Cases Cited:

Muldrock v The Queen [2001] HCA 39

Texts Cited:

None

Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (ODPP)
James Christiansen (Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
ODPP Solicitor (ODPP)
Mr Gibbons (Offender)
File Number(s): 2019/00359119
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

  1. The offender, James Christiansen, appears for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a single count of recklessly cause grievous bodily harm, being sequence 1 of charge number ending 605 in breach of s 35(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of four years imprisonment.

  2. The offending occurred on 14 November 2019. He was committed for sentence in the Local Court on 14 August 2020 at which time another sequence was withdrawn. No time has been spent in custody as a result of this offending.

  3. The facts relating to the offending are set out in the statement of Agreed Facts at tab 3 of Exhibit A. The offender was born on 22 October 1988. He was 31 years of age at the time of the offence. He is the uncle of the complainant. At the time of the offence the offender resided in Narara with his partner, Ms Turner, and the victim, Draye Patrick (born in July 2001). He was 18 at the time of the offence. The victim resided in Belmont, however, at the time of the offence was staying with the offender.

  4. On 14 November 2019 the offender and the complainant both took LSD. The offender said they had done this together on three or four prior occasions although I note that there may be evidence elsewhere that it was just two. In any event nothing much turns upon that. The two men were in West Gosford when they took the drug at about 3pm. They returned to the offender's house at 3.30pm. At around 5.15 to 5.30pm Ms Turner arrived home from work where the offender and the victim were seated and talking in the lounge room area.

  5. The following facts relate to what is described as “altercation one”. Ms Turner and the offender reported that around 6pm the victim began to attack the offender without warning, firstly throwing punches at him and then placing him in a chokehold with his arm around the offender's neck. The offender said he was being choked out. Ms Turner went to the assistance of the offender, at which point she alleged that the victim grabbed her around the waist and threw her across the room where she collided…

Continue reading R v James Christiansen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v James Christiansen [2020] NSWDC 904
Case
[2020] NSWDC 904
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, James Christiansen, was charged with recklessly causing grievous bodily harm to another person. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal centred on the adequacy of the sentence in light of the mitigating circumstances and the legal principles governing sentencing for reckless grievous bodily harm.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in the context of the crime and whether the trial judge had adequately considered all relevant factors. This included assessing whether the appellant's actions were provoked, whether there were any mitigating factors such as self-defence or defence of another, and whether the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence while also considering the appellant's background and circumstances.

The Court of Appeal examined the trial judge's sentencing remarks and found that the judge had adequately considered the principles of sentencing and the facts of the case. The court determined that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate and thus upheld the original sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the full-time custodial sentence imposed by the lower court was confirmed.

In its final orders, the Court of Appeal confirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court, noting that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the need for punishment with the mitigating factors presented in the case. The decision underscored the importance of a thorough and balanced approach to sentencing in cases involving reckless grievous bodily harm.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full time custodial sentence imposed. Orders at [79]

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.