R v Reid - [2005] NSWCCA 309

Reported Decision:
155 A Crim R 428

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION:
Regina v Reid [2005] NSWCCA 309

HEARING DATE(S): 23 August 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

8 September 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Sully J at 1; Hidden J at 30; Hall J at 31

DECISION:
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal against sentence dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1914 (NSW)

CASES CITED:
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Reg v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
Reg v Reyes [2005] NSWCCA 218
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Reg v Beavan; unreported: NSWCCA 22/9/91

PARTIES:
Regina
Paul Wayne Reid

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/495

COUNSEL:
J. Dwyer - Crown
H. Dhanji - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Appellant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/41/0049

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Payne DCJ

- 14 -

2005/495

SULLY J
HIDDEN J
HALL J

REGINA v Paul Wayne REID

Judgment

SULLY J:

1 The applicant, Mr. Reid, pleaded guilty before a Local Court Magistrate to a charge of having maliciously wounded a named victim with intent thereby to do grievous bodily harm to that victim. The applicant was committed accordingly to the District Court for sentence. He stood eventually for sentence on 27 August 2004 before her Honour Judge Payne. Her Honour convicted the appellant, sentenced him to imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months and set a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months.

2 The offence for which the applicant was thus sentenced contravenes section 33 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. The offence is nominated as item 4 in the Table to Division 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), (“the Sentencing Act”); and the term of 7 years is provided as the “standard non-parole period” for item 4.

3 The applicant contends that her Honour, in reasoning to her sentencing decision, “erred by double counting particular aggravating features of the offence”.

4 These are summarised conveniently, and as follows, in the remarks on sentence, and there was no dispute about the accuracy and the sufficiency otherwise of that summary:

“The prisoner and the victim, Anne-Maree Taylor, have known each other since the early 1970’s. The prisoner and the victim were in a de facto relationship but have not been in this type of relationship for the past eighteen years. The prisoner and the victim still see each other as friends. About 12.30 pm on Saturday 13 March 2004 the prisoner and another female attended 31 Howard Avenue, Bega where the victim was living. It was her residence. At the location the victim was sitting at her dining table having a cup of tea when the other female sat on the other side of the table and the prisoner stood…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2005] NSWCCA 309
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 309
Decision Date: 8 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Reid was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, where the appellant, Paul Wayne Reid, challenged the sentence imposed upon him by the District Court. Reid had pleaded guilty to a charge of maliciously wounding a named victim with intent to do grievous bodily harm, an offence that carries a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. The District Court sentenced Reid to 6 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months. Reid's contention was that the District Court erred by "double counting" certain aggravating features of the offence during the sentencing process.

The court considered the relevant legal principles, particularly those outlined in Way v The Queen and Reg v Reyes, which emphasize that a sentencing judge should first determine the objective seriousness of the offence before considering aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court found that the District Court did not correctly implement this approach, instead considering the aggravating and mitigating factors separately, which led to the risk of double counting. However, the Court held that the error did not warrant a more lenient sentence, as the objective seriousness of the offence was significant, and the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range.

The Court granted leave to appeal against the sentence but dismissed the appeal against the sentence, with all three judges agreeing with the majority opinion.

Orders