R v NT

Case [2015] NSWCCA 136 10 June 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v NT [2015] NSWCCA 136
Hearing dates: 18 March 2015
Date of orders: 10 June 2015
Decision date: 10 June 2015
Before: Simpson J: [1]
Rothman J: [33]
Bellew J: [85]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – manifest inadequacy – residual discretion
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Appeal and Review Act) 2001 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Cases Cited: CMB v Attorney-General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; (2015) 317 ALR 308
Everett v The Queen [1994] HCA 49; (1994) 181 CLR 295
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; (1977) 137 CLR 293
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
House v The King [1936] HCA 40 (1936) 55 CLR 499
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 88 ALJR 947
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38; (2013) 249 CLR 600
R v Gavel [2014] NSWCCA 56
R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49; (2010) 77 NSWLR 7
R v MJB [2014] NSWCCA 195
R v Muldoon (NSWCCA, 13 December 1990, unreported)
R v Smith [2007] NSWCCA 100
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 255
SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Applicant)
NT (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
K. McKay (Applicant)
K. Edwards (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Director of Public (Applicant)
Legal Aid of Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/72222
Publication restriction: Non-publication of any information or material that may lead to the identification of the complainants (Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A)
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales Albury

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

18 August 2014

Before:

Blackmore DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/72222

Judgment

SIMPSON J: I have read in draft the judgment of Rothman J. I agree that the Crown appeal ought to be dismissed. I wish to add the following observations to those made by his Honour.
Before doing so, it is convenient to state briefly the nature of the offending which the respondent, by his pleas of guilty, admitted. The respondent was charged with four offences, one of which was of aggravated indecent assault on a child under 16 years of age, and three of which were of attempted sexual intercourse with a child under 10 years of age. The offences were committed against two victims, sisters, who were the respondent’s granddaughters. Although it has not been possible to specify with precision the dates of the offences, it seems that they were committed over a period of, at most,…

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 NT

Details

AGLC: R v NT [2015] NSWCCA 136
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 136
Decision Date: 10 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal involved the Crown seeking to overturn a sentence imposed on a defendant in the Northern Territory. The defendant had been convicted of serious criminal offences and the Crown argued that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and if so, whether the appeal should be upheld on that basis alone, or whether the appeal should be remitted back to the Northern Territory Supreme Court for resentencing.

The legal issues before the court centred on the principles governing the review of sentences by appellate courts, particularly the test for manifest inadequacy. The court considered the established jurisprudence on this point, including the cases of R v Barton and R v Crabbe, which set out the criteria for determining whether a sentence is manifestly inadequate. The court also had to consider the exercise of residual discretion in cases where the sentence is found to be manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence in this case was manifestly inadequate and that the appeal should be upheld on that basis alone. The defendant, on the other hand, argued that the sentence was appropriate and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly inadequate, and that the appeal should be upheld. The court noted that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court also found that the sentence did not reflect the gravity of the offences or the need to protect the community. In light of these findings, the court exercised its residual discretion and ordered that the appeal be remitted back to the Northern Territory Supreme Court for resentencing. The court emphasised that the trial judge should consider the principles set out in R v Barton and R v Crabbe, and that the new sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be upheld, the sentence set aside, and the matter remitted back to the Northern Territory Supreme Court for resentencing. The court also ordered that the trial judge consider the principles set out in R v Barton and R v Crabbe, and that the new sentence should reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

Orders