Criminal Law - Sentencing - Appeal - Crown appeal against sentence - whether fully concurrent sentence inadequate - relationship between s 3A of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and principle of totality - vulnerability under s 21A(2)(1) of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
R. Cogswell SC with J. Caldwell - Crown A. Haesler SC - Applicant
SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh - Crown S. O'Connor - Applicant
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2003/149
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hidden J
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
05/04/2006
2006/906
SPIGELMAN CJ WHEALY J HOWIE J
TUESDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2006
REGINA v MMK
Judgment
1 THE COURT: The Crown has appealed against the sentence imposed upon the respondent by Justice Hidden following a plea of guilty to an offence of having intercourse with a child between the age of 10 and 16 years contrary to s 66C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. This is an offence for which the maximum penalty prescribed is imprisonment for 8 years. In addition the respondent asked the Judge to take into account on a Form 1 two offences being an aggravated indecent assault and a common assault. As a result in 5 April 2006 his Honour sentenced the respondent to a fixed term of imprisonment of 1 year to commence on 5 April 2006 and to expire on 4 April 2007.
2 At the time he was sentenced by Hidden J the respondent was serving a term of imprisonment imposed upon him by Sully J on 22 April 2004 for nine counts of aggravated sexual assault in company contrary to s 61AJ of the Crimes Act. The respondent was subject to a sentence amounting to a total term of 22 years with a non-parole period of 13 years. The respondent was eligible to be considered for parole on 31 July 2015.
3 It should be apparent that the sentence imposed upon the respondent by Hidden J was totally concurrent…
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 MMK
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v MMK [2006] NSWCCA 272
Case
[2006] NSWCCA 272
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v MMK, the appellant, a minor, was convicted for multiple offences including aggravated break and enter, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. The respondent, the Crown, appealed the sentence, arguing that the sentence imposed was inadequate and failed to reflect the severity of the crimes committed. The appeal was heard by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The Crown contended that the sentencing judge had not properly applied the principles of sentencing and had not adequately considered the totality of the crimes committed by the appellant.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was inadequate in light of the seriousness of the offences, and whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principle of totality and the relevant statutory provisions, including sections 3A and 21A(2)(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and whether there were any errors in the application of the sentencing principles that warranted an increase in the sentence.
The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider the totality of the crimes, resulting in a sentence that did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court held that the principle of totality, which requires that the cumulative sentence for multiple offences not be excessive, was not correctly applied. Additionally, the court determined that the vulnerability of the victims, as required under section 21A(2)(1), had not been appropriately considered. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and remitted the matter back to the sentencing court for re-sentencing, with directions to ensure proper consideration of the totality principle and the appellant's vulnerability.
The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal were that the appeal be allowed, the convictions be upheld, and the matter be remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing. The court provided clear directions to the sentencing judge, emphasizing the need to consider the totality of the crimes and the appellant's vulnerability in imposing a sentence.