R v Medlin - [2024] NSWDC 639

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Medlin [2024] NSWDC 639
Hearing dates: 26 August 2024
Decision date: 14 November 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted on each count.
Special circumstances found:
1st substantial period of custody, delay in resolution, mental health considerations, the need for an extended period of supervision on parole.
Indicative sentences: see attached Schedule.
Aggregate sentence:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years with a NPP of 8 years commencing on 1 December 2020 and expiring on 30 November 2028 and a balance of term of 4 years commencing on 1 December 2028 and expiring on 30 November 2032. Eligible for release to parole on 30 November 2028.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence – sexual offending – serious offences of domestic violence against same victim – breaches of ADVO – intentionally choke - sexual intercourse without consent, - multiple threats of physical harm occasioning high levels of fear - ongoing instances of intimidation - fraud, larceny, intentionally damage property by means of fire
CRIME – Sentencing - where matter has a convoluted & protracted history - eventual guilty pleas to 5 (non-sexual) offences & conviction at jury trial in respect of 7 offences – mental health issues –eloquence of Victim Impact Statement - seriousness of offences – aggravating factors – totality - subjective matters

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] 79 NSWLR 1
Elias v R [2013] 248 CLR 483
Markarian v R [2005] 228 CLR 357
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Medlin, John Francis
Representation: Counsel:
Defence: Mr A Conwell
Solicitors:
Crown: Mr S Morrison, Ms E Anderson ODPP
Defence: Mr H Husseini

File Number(s): 2020/00341214
Publication restriction: NPO in respect of the name of the victim and anything that might tend to identify her.

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: The offender, Daniel Medlin, appears for sentence in respect of 12 offences and an additional offence contained on a s 166 certificate. He stood trial in respect of 12 counts. He entered pleas of not guilty in respect of Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and pleas of guilty in respect of Counts 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12. At the conclusion of the trial he was found guilty in respect of Counts 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 and it was indicated that he would plead guilty to the offence contained on the s 166 certificate, being an offence contrary to s 14(1) of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act.
There was one count on the indictment contrary to s 37(1A) of the Crimes Act of intentionally strangle, which has a maximum penalty available of five years.
There were five offences contrary to s 61I of the Crimes Act, being offences of sexual intercourse without consent, those being Counts 2, 5,…

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 Medlin

Details

AGLC: R v Medlin [2024] NSWDC 639
Case: [2024] NSWDC 639
Decision Date: 14 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Medlin, the accused faced the Supreme Court of New South Wales in relation to a multitude of serious offences committed against a single victim. The charges included multiple instances of domestic violence, breaches of an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order, acts of choking, sexual intercourse without consent, threats of physical harm causing significant fear, ongoing intimidation, fraud, larceny, and property damage by fire. The accused eventually entered guilty pleas to five non-sexual offences and was convicted by a jury on seven further counts. The case was complex and prolonged, with consideration of the accused's mental health issues also a significant factor.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate sentence for the accused, taking into account the multifaceted nature of the crimes, the convoluted history of the case, the eloquence of the victim impact statement, and the various aggravating factors. The court needed to balance these considerations with the principle of totality, ensuring that the overall punishment was proportionate and just. Furthermore, the court was required to address subjective matters, such as the need for an extended period of supervision on parole and the impact of the accused's mental health issues on sentencing.

The court emphasised the seriousness of the offences and the substantial impact on the victim. Despite the mitigating factors of the first substantial period of custody, the delay in resolution, and the accused's mental health considerations, the court found that an extended period of supervision on parole was necessary. The court provided indicative sentences for each offence, culminating in an aggregate sentence of twelve years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years. The balance of the sentence was four years, with eligibility for parole release on 30 November 2028.

The court concluded by imposing the sentence as outlined, ensuring that the accused would serve a total of twelve years in prison, with the possibility of parole release after serving eight years. This decision aimed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the consideration of mitigating factors and the overarching principles of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted on each count.

Special circumstances found:

1st substantial period of custody, delay in resolution, mental health considerations, the need for an extended period of supervision on parole.

Indicative sentences: see attached Schedule.

Aggregate sentence:

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years with a NPP of 8 years commencing on 1 December 2020 and expiring on 30 November 2028 and a balance of term of 4 years commencing on 1 December 2028 and expiring on 30 November 2032. Eligible for release to parole on 30 November 2028.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Medlin [2024] NSWDC 639
Hearing dates:	26 August 2024
Decision date:	14 November 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted on each count. Special circumstances found: 1st substantial period of custody, delay in resolution, mental health considerations, the need for an extended period of supervision on parole. Indicative sentences: see attached Schedule. Aggregate sentence: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years with a NPP of 8 years commencing on 1 December 2020 and expiring on 30 November 2028 and a balance of term of 4 years commencing on 1 December 2028 and expiring on 30 November 2032. Eligible for release to parole on 30 November 2028.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentence – sexual offending – serious offences of domestic violence against same victim – breaches of ADVO – intentionally choke - sexual intercourse without consent, - multiple threats of physical harm occasioning high levels of fear - ongoing instances of intimidation - fraud, larceny, intentionally damage property by means of fire CRIME – Sentencing - where matter has a convoluted & protracted history - eventual guilty pleas to 5 (non-sexual) offences & conviction at jury trial in respect of 7 offences – mental health issues –eloquence of Victim Impact Statement - seriousness of offences – aggravating factors – totality - subjective matters
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] 79 NSWLR 1 Elias v R [2013] 248 CLR 483 Markarian v R [2005] 228 CLR 357 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Medlin, John Francis
Representation:	Counsel: Defence: Mr A Conwell Solicitors: Crown: Mr S Morrison, Ms E Anderson ODPP Defence: Mr H Husseini
File Number(s):	2020/00341214
Publication restriction:	NPO in respect of the name of the victim and anything that might tend to identify her.