Legal Research
Cases
R v Partington

R v Partington

Case [2020] NSWDC 175 6 February 2020

Purposes of Sentencing

Parole Period

Objective Seriousness

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Partington [2020] NSWDC 175
Hearing dates: 19 December 2019
Date of orders: 06 February 2020
Decision date: 06 February 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months

Catchwords: CRIME — Violent offences — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Parole period
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Expert reports
SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Intoxication
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39
Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 35
R v De Simoni [1981] 147 CLR 383
R v Partington [2006] NSWSC 442
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
State of New South Wales v Partington (Preliminary) [2019] NSWSC 732
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Shane John Partington (Offender)
Representation:
Kate Austen (Crown)
Wali Shukoor (counsel) (Offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/00004401 & 2019/00066601

EX TEMPORE REVISED JudgEment

INTRODUCTION

Shane John Partington was before the District Court at Parramatta, on 18 October 2019, for the commencement of the proceedings in the District Court for the determination of sentence for an offence of reckless wounding. The matter was adjourned from that date for mention to 1 November 2019. The offender also consented to this Court dealing with a breach of a bond pursuant to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999. On 1 November 2019 the previous order for a sentence assessment report was confirmed and the matter was adjourned to 19 December 2019 for hearing. On that day the offender appeared, acknowledged his plea of guilty in the Local Court to which he appeared before me. Once again, he consented to the breach of bond proceedings being continued before me. I was presented with evidence by way of documents and the matter was adjourned until today for judgement and the imposition of sentence. Submissions were made on the last occasion, speaking to written submissions that had been before me, provided by the parties. The offender did…

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 Partington

Details

AGLC: R v Partington [2020] NSWDC 175
Case: [2020] NSWDC 175
Decision Date: 06 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Partington, the defendant was convicted of multiple charges including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and reckless wounding. The dispute was heard and determined by the court of appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by a lower court. The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriateness of the aggregate sentence, the consideration of maximum penalties, the objective seriousness of the crimes, and the purposes of sentencing, including the role of intoxication and special circumstances in the defendant's case.

The court examined whether the aggregate sentence of three years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years and six months, was commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. It considered the maximum penalties provided by law for each offence and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court also assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, the impact of the defendant's intoxication, and other subjective factors that may influence the sentence. In particular, it deliberated on the purposes of sentencing, which include deterrence, rehabilitation, and protecting society, to ensure that the sentence was just and balanced.

The court found that the aggregate sentence adequately reflected the severity of the crimes, taking into account the maximum penalties and the need to achieve the purposes of sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need to balance the defendant's culpability with the objective seriousness of the offences. It considered the expert reports and agreed facts presented, which detailed the injuries sustained by the victims and the circumstances leading to the assault. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the defendant's intoxication and other mitigating factors, while also ensuring that the sentence served its broader purposes.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the aggregate sentence of imprisonment of three years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years and six months. The court found that this sentence was commensurate with the nature of the offences and the principles of sentencing, providing a balanced outcome that considered both the defendant's culpability and the need to protect society.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Partington [2020] NSWDC 175

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

State of New South Wales v Partington (Preliminary)
[2019] NSWSC 732

…SC 442 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 State of New South Wales v Partington (Preliminary) [2019] NSWSC 732 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Shane John Partington (Offender) Representation: Kate Austen (Crown) Wali Shukoor (counsel) (Offender) D…
Tepania v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 247 Para 11

…The standard non‑parole period is a matter relevant to the determination of sentence in accordance with authority, including Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247, in particular the judgement of Johnson J with whom Payne JA and Simpson AJA agreed. The provisions introducing standard non‑parole periods are set forth in Part…
Munda v Western Australia
[2013] HCA 38 Para 18

…ons of the High Court dealing with abuse of alcohol arising in circumstances of a social disadvantage, such as Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 and Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37. It is now accepted that such challenges in life, particularly through formative years, do not ever lose their impact upo…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 18

…g with abuse of alcohol arising in circumstances of a social disadvantage, such as Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 and Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37. It is now accepted that such challenges in life, particularly through formative years, do not ever lose their impact upon such as this offender and…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 11

…v 1A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 , amended to their present form following the decision of the High Court of Australia in Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39, adopting the principles that were enunciated there. Thus the provisions now require the Court to bring to account that the standard non‑parole period fo…
R v McNaughton
[2006] NSWCCA 242 Para 75

…ve gravity or the sentence that the offender is otherwise to suffer as proportionate to the misconduct, in accordance with the decision of McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242.…
Regina v Partington
[2006] NSWSC 442 Para 42

…2. I have since found the decision of Mathews AJ in which she sentenced an offender of the same name for the offence of manslaughter: R v Partington [2006] NSWSC 442…
Callaghan v R
[2006] NSWCCA 58 Para 23

…ncurrence employed in the allocation of a commencement date. There is discretion in the Court in this regard, discussed by Simpson J in Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58.…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25 Para 15

…e question of the appropriate sentence in the process of intuitive synthesis discussed in various authorities, including by McHugh J in Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25. In determining the sentence which I would indicate as appropriate for the reckless wounding, the standard non‑parole period and the maximum penalty…
R v Qutami
[2001] NSWCCA 353 Para 83

…In the oral submissions, the Crown urged the application of the reasoning of Smart AJ in Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353 to which I have referred and noted that there is no evidence of the propositions he offered regarding the neighbour, the victim, and the events leading to this attack other than what is attributed to him…
R v Qutami
[2001] NSWCCA 35 Para 53

…e evidence. I am left with representations in the documents about those matters and although, as was made clear by Smart AJ in the decision of Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 35, the representations attributed to the offender in such reports are admissible, the Court must be circumspect when it is considering the weight to be…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14 Para 18

…culpability and the flexible use of that term in the cases dealing with the determination of sentence, including in decisions such as Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14, supporting the view that mental abnormality may diminish moral culpability and an antecedent criminal history may illuminate moral culpability. Ther…
R v De Simoni
[1981] HCA 31 Para 80

…about and took the knife, went to the premises, knocked on the door and inflicted the wounds. I remind of the decision in R v De Simoni [1981] 147 CLR 383 and not to increase the punishment beyond that which is appropriate for the misconduct to which he has pleaded guilty.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 7)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 3)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Partington [2020] NSWDC 175
Hearing dates:	19 December 2019
Date of orders:	06 February 2020
Decision date:	06 February 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — General principles SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Maximum penalty SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Parole period SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Agreed facts SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Expert reports SENTENCING — Sentencing procedure — Reasons for sentence SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Intoxication SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Sentencing Options) Act 2017
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58 Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v R [2011] HCA 39 Munda v The State of Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 35 R v De Simoni [1981] 147 CLR 383 R v Partington [2006] NSWSC 442 R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242 State of New South Wales v Partington (Preliminary) [2019] NSWSC 732 Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247 Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Shane John Partington (Offender)
Representation:	Kate Austen (Crown) Wali Shukoor (counsel) (Offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2017/00004401 & 2019/00066601