Legal Research
Cases
R v Mitchell

R v Mitchell

Case [1999] NSWCCA 120 21 June 1999

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
108 A Crim R 85

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Mitchell [1999] NSWCCA 120

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60445/97

HEARING DATE(S): 03/12/98

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 June 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
v
John Michael MITCHELL

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Sperling J at 1; Hidden J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 93/11/0851

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Holt DCJ

COUNSEL: Crown: P G Berman
Mitchell: G P Craddock

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Mitchell: Joan Baptie

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW; Appeal; Limiting term; Minimum and additional term; Factors to be considered; Whether limiting term was manifestly excessive

ACTS CITED: Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW)
Sentencing Act 1989 (NSW)

CASES CITED:
R v Maclay (1990) 19 NSWLR 112
R v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
R v Parker (1990) 19 NSWLR 177
Veen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67

DECISION: Appeal Allowed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60445/97

BEAZLEY JA
SPERLING J
HIDDEN J
Monday, 21 June 1999

REGINA v JOHN MICHAEL MITCHELL
JUDGMENT

1 THE COURT: The appellant, after a special hearing conducted under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 (NSW) (the MH(CP) Act) was found by a jury to have committed the offence of being an accessory before the fact to the malicious infliction of grievous bodily harm upon Catherine Jane Sommer. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 25 years penal servitude: s 33 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
2 Under the MH(CP) Act, a person is not sentenced in the ordinary way. Rather, the trial judge is required to nominate a term, called the limiting term, being the maximum period for which a person may be detained in institutional care for the offence. Pursuant to s 23(1)(b) of the MH(CP) Act, the sentencing judge nominated a limiting term of 18 years 8 months. His Honour specified that this was comprised of a minimum term of 14 years backdated to 10 December 1992 when the appellant went into custody for the offence and an additional term of 4 years 8 months commencing on 10 December 2006 and expiring on 9 August 2011.
3 The appellant appeals against the limiting term nominated.
Background
4 The appellant was arrested and charged on 10 December 1992 with the offence to which we have referred. The actual perpetrator of the attack on Ms Sommer was Thomas Wilson.
5 The appellant and Ms Sommer had a brief relationship in 1991. Ms Sommer terminated the relationship when she told the appellant she no longer wished to see him. Ms Sommer rejected further advances by the appellant and in early 1992 the appellant set about to procure an attack on her. He made an offer of $500 to Mark Swales to “knock her teeth out”. Swales eventually refused to carry out the attack.…

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 Mitchell

Details

AGLC: R v Mitchell [1999] NSWCCA 120
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 120
Decision Date: 21 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mitchell, the appellant challenged his sentence, arguing that the limiting term imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive. The appellant had been convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a specified limiting term. The appellant's appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the court was required to determine whether the limiting term was manifestly excessive. The legal issue before the court was whether the limiting term was manifestly excessive, and if so, what the appropriate course of action would be.

The court considered the factors relevant to determining whether a limiting term was manifestly excessive. These factors included the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's culpability, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the impact of the limiting term on the appellant's sentence. The court also considered the appellant's arguments that the limiting term was manifestly excessive, and whether it was appropriate to reduce the limiting term. After considering these factors, the court found that the limiting term was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The court noted that the sentencing judge had carefully considered the relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant. The court also noted that the appellant's culpability was high, and that the need for deterrence and denunciation was significant. The court found that the limiting term was not manifestly excessive, and that there were no grounds for reducing the limiting term. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and that the original sentence be upheld. The appellant was to serve the full term of imprisonment specified by the sentencing judge, with the limiting term remaining unchanged. The court emphasised the importance of considering the relevant factors in determining whether a limiting term was manifestly excessive, and the need for sentencing judges to carefully consider these factors in each case.

Orders