Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241 Hearing dates: 21 October 2016 Date of orders: 02 November 2016 Decision date: 02 November 2016 Before: Meagher JA, Davies and Fagan JJ Decision: 1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The sentence imposed upon Moromi Jeremiah on 30 June 2016 for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed on 22 October 2014 is quashed.
3. In lieu thereof Moromi Jeremiah is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 1 year 3 months to commence on 25 March 2017 and to expire on 24 June 2018 and a balance of term of 5 months to commence on 25 June 2018 and to expire on 24 November 2018.Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – manifest inadequacy – sentence imposed entirely concurrent with sentence for unrelated offences – whether sentencing judge erred by failing to accumulate sentences – principle of totality Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)Cases Cited: CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; (2015) 89 ALJR 407
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70
Pannowitz v R [2016] NSWCCA 13
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26
R v Fyffe [2002] NSWSC 751
R v Hoskins [2004] NSWCCA 236
R v MAK; R v MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
Regina v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34Category: Principal judgment Parties: Regina (applicant)
Moromi Jeremiah (respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Ms Belinda Baker (applicant)
Ms April Francis (respondent)
Mr C Hyland, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (applicant)
Mr S Eccleshall, Legal Aid Commission (respondent)
File Number(s): 2014/325851 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Citation:
- Not published
- Date of Decision:
- 30 June 2016
- Before:
- Farmer SC DCJ
- File Number(s):
- 2014/325851
Judgment
-
THE COURT: The respondent Moromi Jeremiah pleaded guilty in the District Court on 30 June 2016 to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company contrary to s 59(2) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The Crown appeals against inadequacy of the sentence imposed by his Honour the late Judge Farmer SC, on the ground that the learned judge failed to accumulate the sentence to any extent upon a term of imprisonment which the respondent was already serving when the sentence under appeal was imposed.
-
On 25 September 2013 the respondent had committed offences of common assault, aggravated entering of a dwelling house whilst armed, with intent to commit an indictable offence, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent. He had been arrested for that group of offences on the day they were committed and was on remand in custody awaiting trial from then until 28 August 2015. On the latter date he was convicted of those offences and sentenced for them by his Honour Judge Cogswell SC.
-
The assault which was the…
Continue reading R v Jeremiah
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Jeremiah [2016] NSWCCA 241
- Case
- [2016] NSWCCA 241
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in ordering the sentences to run concurrently, rather than accumulating them. The principle of totality requires that the aggregate term of imprisonment not exceed what would be an appropriate sentence for all the offences taken together. The court was required to determine if the trial judge had failed to apply this principle appropriately.
The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred by ordering the sentences to run concurrently without applying the principle of totality. The principle of totality ensures that the total punishment imposed is proportionate to the overall criminality of the offender. The court held that the trial judge should have accumulated the sentences for the two offences, considering the totality of the defendant's offending, before determining the appropriate concurrent term. The appeal was allowed on the basis of the manifest inadequacy of the sentence and the failure to apply the principle of totality.
The court ordered a retrial of the sentencing to ensure that the principle of totality was correctly applied. It was directed that the sentences for the two offences be accumulated and then considered together to determine an appropriate concurrent term of imprisonment. The defendant was to be re-sentenced in light of these findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.