R v Little - [2013] NSWCCA 288

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Little [2013] NSWCCA 288
Hearing dates: 18 November 2013
Decision date: 18 November 2013
Before: Blanch J at [1]
RA Hulme J at [33]
Bellew J at [34]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - Crown appeal against sentence - whether sentence is manifestly inadequate - whether accumulation inadequate - whether non-parole period inadequate - effect of imminent release - effect of mental health issues - Crown appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s 5D(1)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 112(3), s 96
Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990
Cases Cited: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Regina v Weldon; Regina v Carberry (2002) 136 A Crim R 55
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 205 ALR 346
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown (Applicant)
Daniel James Little (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
V Lydiard - Applicant
P Hamill SC - Respondent
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Applicant
S E O'Connor, Legal Aid NSW - Respondent

File Number(s): 2010/65426
Publication restriction: No
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Citation:

R v Daniel James Little

Date of Decision:

2013-04-19 00:00:00

Before:

Judge English

File Number(s):

2010/65426

Judgment

BLANCH J: The Crown appeals pursuant to s 5D(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against a sentence imposed on Daniel James Little, the respondent, in the District Court at Wagga Wagga on 19 April 2013 on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

On 30 November 2012 the respondent entered pleas of guilty to the following counts:

(1) Specially aggravated break enter and commit serious indictable offence (wound Elizabeth Cattell) on or about 22 January 2009 contrary to s 112(3) Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 7 years.

(2) Aggravated robbery with wounding on or about 22 January 2009 contrary to s 96 Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

On 19 April 2013 he was sentenced on count 1 to imprisonment for 6 years commencing 8 July 2010 and expiring 7 July 2016. A non-parole period was fixed of 3 years and 6 months expiring on 7 January 2014. On count 2 he was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment commencing 8 October 2010 and expiring 7 October 2016 and a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months expiring on 7 April 2014. In imposing sentence Judge English indicated her remarks when previously sentencing the respondent should also be taken into account. That comment relates to a sentence imposed by the same judge on the respondent on 4 August 2010. On that day he was sentenced to a total term of 3 years and 9 months commencing 8 July 2009 and expiring 7 April 2013. A non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months was specified and that expired on 7 October 2011.

History…

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 Little

Details

AGLC: R v Little [2013] NSWCCA 288
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 288
Decision Date: 18 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Little, the respondent was convicted of multiple charges related to drug trafficking and supply. The Crown, dissatisfied with the sentence imposed by the trial judge, appealed to the court. The central dispute was whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, both in its overall accumulation and in the non-parole period. The appeal was heard by the higher court, which was tasked with determining the appropriateness of the sentence given the severity of the crimes and the respondent's imminent release due to his mental health issues.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, if the accumulation of the sentence was insufficient, and if the non-parole period was inadequate. Additionally, the court had to consider the implications of the respondent's imminent release and his mental health issues on the sentencing decision. The Crown argued that the sentence was too lenient given the gravity of the crimes and the respondent's criminal history. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate considering his mental health and the likelihood of rehabilitation.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the notion of manifest inadequacy, and considered the totality of the sentence, including its accumulation and the non-parole period. The court noted that the sentence imposed was within the statutory maximum and reflected a significant discount due to the respondent's cooperation and mental health issues. The imminent release of the respondent was also taken into account, as was the need for rehabilitation and deterrence. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence, while harsh, was not manifestly inadequate. The court was satisfied that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the various sentencing considerations, including the respondent's mental health and the potential for rehabilitation.

The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, finding it to be appropriate and not manifestly inadequate. The decision underscored the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the impact of mental health issues and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders