R v Rayment

Case [2010] NSWCCA 85

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
R v Rayment [2010] NSWCCA 85

FILE NUMBER(S):
2008/18584

HEARING DATE(S):
28 April 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 May 2010

PARTIES:
Regina (Appellant)
Randall James Rayment (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF:
Tobias JA Johnson J Rothman J   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2008/18584

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Coorey DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
9 February 2010

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
---

COUNSEL:
Mr F Veltro (Appellant)
Mr J Stratton SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
Mark Rumore & Associates (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW
sentence
Crown appeal
order under s.11 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
offences of reckless wounding and aggravated detain for advantage
whether error in exercise of s.11 power
held (by majority) error not disclosed

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
R v Trindall [2002] NSWCCA 364; 133 A Crim R 119
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381; 134 A Crim R 174
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Sayin v R [2008] NSWCCA 307
R v Miria [2009] NSWCCA 68
Spooner v R [2009] NSWCCA 247
R v Elmir [2003] NSWCCA 192
Lovell v R [2006] NSWCCA 222
Barlow v R [2008] NSWCCA 96
R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47
R v Mitchell [2007] NSWCCA 296; 177 A Crim R 94
R v Dodd [1991] 57 A Crim R 349
R v Scott [2005] NSWCCA 152
Truss v R [2008] NSWCCA 325
R v Alameddine [2005] NSWCCA 68
R v ABS [2005] NSWCCA 255
R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 39
O’Neil-Shaw v R [2010] NSWCCA 42
Re Coldham Ex Parte Brideson [1989] HCA 2; (1989) 166 CLR 338
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
R v Gordon (1994) 71 A Crim R 459
Griffiths v R [1977] HCA 44; (1977) 137 CLR 293
HAN, Zhi Qiang v R [2009] NSWCCA 300
R v AN [2005] NSWCCA 239
R v LNT [2005] NSWCCA 307
MJ v R, CPD v R [2010] NSWCCA 52

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
Crown appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2008/18584

TOBIAS JA
JOHNSON J
ROTHMAN J

7 May 2010

R v RANDALL JAMES RAYMENT

Judgment

  1. TOBIAS JA:  I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgments of Johnson J and Rothman J in this matter.  As their Honours adopt opposing views as to the outcome of the Crown’s appeal, it falls to me to, in effect, choose between them.  This is no easy task for the reasons of each of my colleagues in reaching their respective conclusions are both principled and persuasive. 

  2. There seems to me to be three issues of particular relevance to my decision.  The first is whether the sentencing judge made a finding with respect to the objective seriousness of the offences for which the offender was to be sentenced.  It is…

Continue reading R v Rayment

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rayment [2010] NSWCCA 85
Case
[2010] NSWCCA 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rayment, the appellant challenged the sentence imposed upon him by the District Court of New South Wales. The appellant had pleaded guilty to two serious offences: reckless wounding under s.35(4) of the Crimes Act 1900, and aggravated detain for advantage under s.86(2)(b) of the same Act. The maximum penalty for the reckless wounding offence was imprisonment for seven years with a standard non-parole period of three years, while the aggravated detain for advantage carried a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years. The Crown appealed against the sentence, contending that the District Court had erred in its exercise of the sentencing powers under s.11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the District Court had made an error in its exercise of the discretion afforded by s.11 of the Sentencing Act. The Crown argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and that the District Court had failed to give sufficient weight to the severity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and that any perceived error by the District Court did not amount to a miscarriage of justice warranting intervention by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The majority of the court found that no error had been disclosed in the exercise of the s.11 power by the District Court. The court emphasised that it was not the role of the appellate court to substitute its own view of an appropriate sentence for that of the primary sentencing judge. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's guilty plea, his lack of a prior criminal record, and the specific facts of the offences. The court concluded that the District Court had appropriately balanced the various sentencing considerations and had exercised its discretion in a manner consistent with the principles of sentencing under the relevant legislation.

The court's decision upheld the original sentence imposed by the District Court. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence remained in place. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of deference to the sentencing discretion of the primary court, particularly in the absence of any clear and substantial error in the exercise of that discretion.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Respondent had pleaded guilty to reckless wounding, an offence under s.35(4) Crimes Act 1900 bearing a maximum penalty of imprisonment for seven years with a standard non-parole period of three years. In addition, the Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated detain for advantage, an offence under s.86(2)(b) Crimes Act 1900, which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years. Facts of Offences The determination of the Crown appeal requires a statement of the facts of the offences for which the Respondent stood for sentence in the District Court. In his remarks on sentence of 9 February 2010, Coorey DCJ did not recite the facts of the offences, but incorporated by reference the agreed statements of facts which had been tendered in the sentencing proceedings. They disclosed the following events.The Reckless Wounding Offence At about 10.20 pm on Saturday, 8 March 2008, the Respondent (then aged 21 years) and a male associate attended the Pendle Hill Inn where they began drinking, initially purchasing alcohol from the main bar. The Respondent and his associate moved to the bistro and poker machine area of the premises. The two men played the poker machines for a period of time and engaged in conversation with a female patron. While the Respondent and his friend were talking to the female patron, the victim, Adam Ankrett, entered the poker machine area and sat down in front of one of the poker machines formerly used by the Respondent and his friend. The victim activated the machine with $20.00 and began playing the machine. The Respondent’s associate approached Mr Ankrett and picked up a beer that was next to the machine being used by him, and then returned to where the Respondent was in conversation with the female patron. At this point, the Respondent was seated on a stool next to the victim. The Respondent turned and began an argument with the victim over who should have control of the poker machine. The Respondent’s friend attempted to intervene, suggesting that they leave. The Respondent stood up and continued the argument, whilst his friend attempted to push him in the direction of the exit. The victim attempted to move away. At this point, the Respondent was holding in his right hand a schooner-sized glass containing a quantity of beer. He swung his arm back and threw the glass towards the victim’s face. The glass hit the victim on the throat and it smashed. The impact of the glass caused a wound to open and bleed on the left side of the victim’s neck. The Respondent began to punch the victim to the face. The female patron watched as the Respondent stood over the victim who, by this time, was on the floor. The Respondent’s friend made further unsuccessful attempts to encourage him to leave. The Respondent then knelt on the victim’s chest and repeatedly punched him with a closed right fist to the face, causing blood to come from the victim's nose. Concerned by the force of the punches and that the Respondent might not stop, the female patron left the area to seek assistance. The Respondent stopped punching the victim and, with his friend, left the area shortly after the female had gone to obtain assistance. The Respondent crossed through the interior of the hotel, coming into contact with a hotel security guard who was on his way to investigate noises associated with the assault. The security guard grabbed the Respondent by his shirtfront and asked him “What’s going on”? The Respondent threw back his hands and replied “Let me go. It’s got nothing to do with me”. The security guard let go of the Respondent’s shirt and continued on his way towards the scene of the incident. At the same time, the Respondent left the hotel and was followed shortly after by his friend.

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.