Legal Research
Cases
R v Remilton

R v Remilton

Case [2001] NSWCCA 546 6 December 2001

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Remilton [2001] NSWCCA 546

FILE NUMBER(S):
60652/01

HEARING DATE(S): 6 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 06/12/2001

PARTIES:
Crown
Joshua Jay Remilton

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA Hidden J Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/21/0046

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Karpin DCJ

COUNSEL:
LMB Lamprati - Crown
D Brezniak - App

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor - Crown
Hal Ginges & Co - App

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW: Sentence - Crown Appeal - offences of violence upon infant - suspended sentence - exceptional subjective case.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Child Care and Protection Act, 1987
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act)

DECISION:
See paragraphs 18-23

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60652/01
STEIN JA
HIDDEN J
HOWIE J
Thursday, 6 December 2001

REGINA v Joshua Jay REMILTON

JUDGMENT

HIDDEN J: This is an appeal by the Crown against what is said to be the inadequacy of sentences passed upon the respondent by Karpin DCJ following his pleading guilty to charges of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm, common assault and neglecting to provide adequate care for a child, the last offence being an offence under s 26 of the Child Care and Protection Act 1987. The last offence was in fact on a Form 1 and her Honour took it into account when passing sentence on the charge of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm.
On that first charge her Honour sentenced the respondent to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for two years with a bond, accompanied by certain conditions to which it will be necessary to return. On the charge of common assault her Honour directed the respondent to enter into a good behaviour bond for three years, again with certain conditions.
The facts of this distressing case were adequately summarised by her Honour in her remarks on sentence as follows:
"The prisoner and his defacto wife are the parents of two children, a son aged two at the time of these events and the victim, a daughter born on 24 June 2000 and accordingly about eight weeks old at the relevant time.
On 27 August the baby had an unsettled night. The mother gave the care of the child to the prisoner in order to get some sleep. She heard the child crying. After about an hour the prisoner brought the baby to her and she says threw the baby to her. She immediately noticed that there was severe bruising on the child's face which had not been there when she placed the child in its bassinette some time earlier. The prisoner denied any knowledge as to how the bruising had occurred.
The following day the child's mother took the baby to a doctor complaining that the child was not feeding well and was irritable. The doctor could find nothing wrong. The next day, however, the child's condition was observed by a family support worker who arranged for her to be examined by a doctor, as a consequence of which a notification was…

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 Remilton

Details

AGLC: R v Remilton [2001] NSWCCA 546
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 546
Decision Date: 6 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence handed down by the lower court in the case of R v Remilton. The defendant, Remilton, was found guilty of committing violent acts upon an infant. The case was heard in the relevant appellate court, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed. The Crown argued that the sentence was too lenient, given the nature and severity of the offences committed.

The primary legal issue that the court needed to address was whether the lower court had erred in its exercise of discretion when imposing a suspended sentence on the defendant. The Crown contended that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences, which involved significant violence against a vulnerable victim. The court had to consider whether the circumstances of the case were exceptional enough to warrant a departure from the usual sentencing principles.

The court, in its judgment, carefully considered the nature of the offences and the principles of sentencing for such crimes. It recognised that the lower court had exercised its discretion to impose a suspended sentence, which is permissible in certain cases where it is deemed appropriate. However, the court concluded that the lower court had not sufficiently articulated the reasons for its decision, nor had it adequately considered the impact of the offences on the victim. The appellate court found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and allowed the appeal, substituting a custodial sentence in its place. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing for such serious offences.

The final orders of the court included the substitution of the suspended sentence with a custodial sentence, with specific details regarding the length of the sentence and any conditions that would apply. The court also directed that the case be remitted to the lower court for the purpose of recalculating the defendant's sentence, taking into account the appellate court's directions.

Orders