R v JCW

Case [2000] NSWCCA 209 5 June 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: [2000] 112 A Crim R 466

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v J C W [2000] NSWCCA 209

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60534/98

HEARING DATE(S): 21/03/2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 June 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
J C W

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Ireland J at 70; Simpson J at 132

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/1091

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL : P Byrne SC / M Marty (Applicant)
D C Frearson (Crown)

SOLICITORS: T A Murphy (Applicant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - representative counts - CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - sentence not manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Legislation (Amendment) Act 1992
Queensland Criminal Code
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED:
Attorney-General for New South Wales v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1951-1952) 85 CLR 23
Kingswell v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 264
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
The Queen v Austin (1985) 121 LSJS 181
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
The Queen v Reiner (1974) 8 SASR 102
R v Bettridge (Supreme Court of Queensland, Court of Appeal, 27 May 1998, unreported)
R v D; R v Dales [1996] 1 Qd R 363; (1995) 80 A Crim R 50
R v DJT [1999] NSWCCA 22
R v Fisher (1989) 40 A Crim R 442
R v Godfrey (1993) 69 A Crim R 318
R v Gray [1977] VR 225
R v GWE (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Criminal Appeal, 12 March 1997, unreported)
R v H (1980) 3 A Crim R 53
R v H (1994) 74 A Crim R 41
R v Holyoak (1995) 82 A Crim R 502
R v Hile (Supreme Court of Queensland, Court of Appeal, 5 February 1999, unreported)
R v Hudson (Supreme Court of NSW, Court of Criminal Appeal, 30 July 1998, unreported)
R v Kidd; R v Canavan [1998] 1 WLR 604; [1998] 1 Cr App R 79
R v Martin (Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, Court of Criminal Appeal, 27 March 1995, unreported)
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 73 ALJR 1550; (1999) 166 ALR 330
R v SBL [1999] 1 VR 706
R v Wackerow [1998] 1 Qd R 198; (1996) 90 A Crim R 297
R v Wright (Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Criminal Appeal, 13 May 1974, unreported)
R v Zahra [1998] SASC 7010
Rodway v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 515
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656

DECISION: 1 That time in which the appeal may be brought be enlarged and the appeal allowed; 2 That the sentences imposed on 14 August 1997 be quashed; 3 In lieu thereof, the Applicant be sentenced on Count 1 to imprisonment for ten years commencing on 8 August 1997 with a non-parole period of eight years, and on Count…

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 JCW

Details

AGLC: R v JCW [2000] NSWCCA 209
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 209
Decision Date: 5 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v JCW was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, JCW, faced charges related to multiple criminal activities, resulting in a dispute over the appropriate sentencing. The court needed to determine the correct sentence for the crimes committed, particularly focusing on the severity and proportionality of the punishment in relation to the offences.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the representative counts used in the sentencing process were correctly applied. The court had to examine the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 1992, considering both the severity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The judge meticulously reviewed the evidence and the principles of sentencing, affirming that the punishment was proportionate to the crimes committed. The court also found that the representative counts were correctly applied, taking into account the totality of the offences. This careful analysis ensured that the sentence aligned with the objectives of justice and punishment.

No further orders were made beyond the affirmation of the sentence. The court's decision was grounded in a detailed examination of the legal framework and the specifics of the case, providing a clear rationale for the outcome.

Orders