Hoeben CJ at CL [at 1] Schmidt J at [2] Barr AJ at [3]
Decision:
Grant leave to appeal
Dismiss the appeal
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice – whether sufficient weight given to the applicant’s disclosure to police of his offence – whether applicant’s mental illness reduced the role of general deterrence – whether lesser sentence warranted
Blake Andrew Stafford - Applicant Regina - Crown Respondent
Representation:
Counsel: Mr I H Wallach - Applicant Ms H Wilson SC - Crown Respondent Solicitors:David Davidge - Applicant Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Crown Respondent
File Number(s):
2011/136471
Decision under appeal
Date of Decision:
2013-03-13 00:00:00
Before:
Payne DCJ
File Number(s):
2011/136471
Judgment
The Application
HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Barr AJ
SCHMIDT J: I agree with Barr AJ
BARR AJ: This is an application for leave to appeal from sentences imposed in the District Court. The applicant, Blake Andrew Stafford, was committed to that Court for sentence on charges that may be summarised thus -
(1) On 23 April 2011 at Willbriggie, New South Wales, by wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm to a person, namely RS;
(2) On 23 April 2011 at Willbriggie, New South Wales, by wanton and furious driving causing bodily harm to a person, namely AC;
(3) On 23 April 2011 at Willbriggie, New South Wales, doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice;
In addition, a charge of failing to stop and assist after an impact causing injury was included in a Certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
The first two counts were laid under s 53 of the Crimes Act 1900. Each attracted a maximum penalty of imprisonment for two years. On each, Payne DCJ sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a fixed term of three months commencing on 10 March 2013 and expiring on 9 June 2013. The third count was laid under s 319 of the Crimes Act and attracted a maximum penalty of imprisonment for fourteen years. On that count, her Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months comprising a non-parole period of ten months, commencing on 10 May 2013 and expiring on 9 March 2014, and a balance of term of one year, expiring on 9 March 2015.
For the offence in the Certificate her Honour imposed a fixed term of one month, concurrent…
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 Stafford
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Stafford [2014] NSWCCA 6
Case
[2014] NSWCCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant for committing an act with the intent to pervert the course of justice. The applicant had confessed to the police, which was considered in the sentencing process. The court had to determine whether sufficient weight was given to the applicant's voluntary disclosure of his offence to the police and whether his mental illness reduced the role of general deterrence. Additionally, the court had to decide whether a lesser sentence was warranted.
The applicant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive because the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to the fact that the applicant had disclosed his offence to the police. The applicant also contended that his mental illness reduced the role of general deterrence and that a lesser sentence was warranted. The central issue was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the applicant's voluntary disclosure and his mental health status.
The court held that the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to the applicant's voluntary disclosure of his offence to the police. The court found that the applicant's disclosure was a significant mitigating factor that should have been considered more heavily. Additionally, the court found that the applicant's mental illness reduced the role of general deterrence. The court concluded that a lesser sentence was warranted due to these factors. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing.
The court ordered that the case be remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing, taking into account the factors identified by the court. The court did not specify the nature of the new sentence, leaving that determination to the sentencing court.