R v Stebbings - [2001] NSWCCA 262

CITATION: R v Stebbings [2001] NSWCCA 262

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60596/00

HEARING DATE(S): 02/07/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 July 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Brett John Stebbings

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 24; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/51/0186

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : District Court

COUNSEL : (A) P Strickland
(C) L M B Lampratti

SOLICITORS: (A) D J Humphreys
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - excessive sentence for assault occasioning actual bodily harm - need for proportionality

LEGISLATION CITED: Nil

CASES CITED:
Thomson & Houlton 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted - Appeal allowed - Sentence imposed quashed - in lieu applicant sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years six months to commence on 10 April 2000 and to expire on 9 October 2002 with a non-parole period of 15 months to commence on 10 April 2000 and to expire on 9 July 2001 - the applicant is to be released omn parole on the expiry of his non-parole period.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60596/00

ADAMS J

SMART AJ

Monday, 2 July 2001

REGINA v BRETT JOHN STEBBINGS

JUDGMENT

1 SMART AJ : Brett John Stebbings seeks leave to appeal from the District Court against the severity of a sentence of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The applicant pleaded guilty to this offence. He was acquitted by a jury of the more serious offence of malicious wounding of his de facto wife. The sentence commenced on 10 April 2000.

2 The applicant's de facto wife drank quite extensively. She insisted that her drinking took place away from the two children and that they were not endangered. The applicant asserts that after visiting hotels or clubs she would pick up the children on the way home. She often had the keys of the car. The applicant strongly objected to her driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor when she had the children in the car. On 26 May 1999 the applicant's de facto wife had been drinking. The applicant and his de facto wife had a major row over the car keys and her driving or attempting to drive with the children in the car after she had been drinking alcoholic liquor.

3 The applicant hit his de facto wife with considerable force and she sustained a black left eye and swollen left cheek. He denied punching her. He described it as a back-hander. The judge accepted that evidence.

4 Unfortunately, the evidence of the de facto wife was vague and in some respects unsatisfactory. She could not remember what led to the incident or the details of it apart from being hit. The offence was committed whilst the applicant was on parole, and indeed shortly after his release from custody.

5 The applicant was born on 26 July 1970. He has quite a long criminal record which began…

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 Stebbings

Details

AGLC: R v Stebbings [2001] NSWCCA 262
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 262
Decision Date: 2 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stebbings involved the appellant, Stebbings, who was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The appellant attacked the victim in a public place, causing serious injuries. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to review the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was disproportionate to the crime committed. The court was required to determine if the sentence was excessive and, if so, what the appropriate sentence should be.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was indeed disproportionate. The court held that the sentence must be proportionate to the severity of the crime and must also consider the principles of justice and deterrence. The court noted that the lower court had failed to adequately consider the principles of proportionality and had not given sufficient weight to the mitigating factors present in the case. The High Court emphasised that the sentence must reflect the seriousness of the crime, while also taking into account the individual circumstances of the offender and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

As a result of the High Court's decision, the sentence imposed on the appellant was deemed to be excessive and was reduced. The High Court noted that the reduced sentence was proportionate to the crime committed and took into account the principles of justice and deterrence. The court held that the sentence must be proportionate to the severity of the crime and must also consider the individual circumstances of the offender and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The High Court's decision in R v Stebbings serves as an important reminder of the need for proportionality in sentencing and the importance of considering the principles of justice and deterrence.

Orders