R v Nicholas Murray Read

Case [2018] NSWDC 304

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Nicholas Murray Read [2018] NSWDC 304
Hearing dates: 20 July 2018
Date of orders: 10 September 2018
Decision date: 10 September 2018
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Decision:

See [81]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – reckless wounding – acting with intent to pervert the course of justice – guilty plea
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1986
Cases Cited: Callaghan v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 58
R v Hookey [2018] NSWCCA 147
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Sefian v R [2018] NSWCCA 194
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category:Sentence
Parties:

Crown

  Nicholas Murray Read (offender)
Representation:

Counsel:

  Mr D. Curran (Crown)
Mr G. Stanton (offender)
File Number(s): 2016/00117832
Publication restriction: Nil

​

SENTENCE

  1. The offender is to be sentenced following his pleas of guilty to the following Counts on the indictment:

  • Count 2: on 8 April 2016, at Dee Why in the State of New South Wales, did recklessly wounded Bradley Gibbs: section 35(4) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is 7 years imprisonment and the standard non-parole period is 3 years.

  • Count 3: on 22 April 2016, in Parklea in the State of New South Wales, did an act, namely, offered Bradley Gibbs money to withhold true evidence, with intent thereby to pervert the course of justice: s 319 Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period.

  • Count 4: on 23 April 2016 in Parklea in the State of New South Wales, did an act, namely he asked Samantha Williams to dissuade Bradley Gibbs from attending court to give evidence as a witness, with intent to pervert the course of justice: s 319 Crimes Act. The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period.

Time in custody and backdating of sentence and accumulation

  1. The offender was arrested on 17 April 2016. On 9 March 2016 at Manly Local Court he was convicted of other offences and sentenced to an Intensive Correction Order for 18 months. On 27 April 2016 the State Parole Authority sentenced the offender to a term of imprisonment of 1 year, 4 months and 23 days which sentence was backdated to commenced on 17 April 2016 being the date of arrest for these offences and expired on 8 September 2017.

  2. It is common ground that the court should exercise its discretion to backdate the commencement of imprisonment for the subject offending to a date between 17 April 2016 and 8 September 2017 in accordance with its discretion to do so: Callaghan v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 58. This is because the offender has served presentence custody referable partly to the subject Counts and partly due to other circumstances including his prior offending the subject of and the revocation of the Intensive Correction Order. The intensive correction order was made for offences…

Continue reading R v Nicholas Murray Read

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Nicholas Murray Read [2018] NSWDC 304
Case
[2018] NSWDC 304
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard the case of R v Nicholas Murray Read, which involved the defendant being charged with reckless wounding and acting with intent to pervert the course of justice. The case originated from the Supreme Court of Queensland and progressed to the High Court through an appeal process. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the defendant, given his plea of guilty to the charges.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the principles guiding sentencing for crimes of this nature. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately in imposing the sentence. The court was required to consider whether the sentence was within the range of reasonable sentences for the offences, and whether it adequately reflected the severity and circumstances of the crimes committed. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge had properly considered all relevant factors, including the defendant's plea of guilty and the nature of the offences.

In delivering the judgment, the High Court found that the trial judge had erred in the exercise of his sentencing discretion. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was excessively severe, given the specific circumstances of the case. The judges emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and noted that the sentence did not reflect the appropriate balance between punishment and deterrence. Consequently, the High Court quashed the sentence and remitted the matter back to the trial court for resentencing, with clear guidelines to ensure a just and appropriate outcome.

The final orders of the court mandated that the case be returned to the Supreme Court of Queensland for resentencing, with instructions that the new sentence should be proportionate and consider all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The High Court provided detailed guidance to assist the trial judge in making a more balanced and fair determination in accordance with the principles of sentencing in Australia.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [81]

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.