1 Leave to appeal granted.; 2 Appeal against sentence allowed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence. - CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Special Circumstances – General Deterrence & Intellectual Disability – The principle that individuals should not be allowed to take the law into their own hands is accorded less weight where the offender has an intellectual disability. - CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Special Circumstances – Personal Deterrence & Sexual Abuse of Defendant by Victim – Where the motivation is retaliation for prior sexual abuse the need for personal deterrence and protection of the community is considerably lessened, unless prior offences indicate the behaviour is not isolated. - CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Fresh Evidence – New evidence rejected as too narrow too contribute to sentencing exercise - CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Where judges sentence two offenders at the same time, with detailed reasons regarding their respective criminality, appellate courts should be cautious between accepting one defendant had a justifiable sense of grievance.
Steve O’Connor (Applicant) NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
Coolahan DCJ
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
04/31/0270
- 22 -
2005/2254
SPIGELMAN CJ BARR J HOWIE J
Monday 6 March 2006
REGINA v Rick Barry SWAN
Judgment
1 SPIGELMAN CJ: The Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of assault with intent to rob in circumstances of aggravation (using corporal violence) contrary to s95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and one count of being armed with intent to rob with wounding pursuant to s98 of that Act. His Honour Judge Coolahan DCJ sentenced him in relation to the s95(1) offence to a twelve month fixed term to date from 4 April 2004. That term has been served. On the s98 offence his Honour sentenced him to a non-parole period of two years and a total sentence of seven years to date from 5 October 2004. By reason of the accumulation the effective sentence is seven and half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two and half years.
2 A co-accused in the s98 offence, Joshua Roddom, was sentenced by his Honour,…
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 Swan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47
Case
[2006] NSWCCA 47
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Swan, sought leave to appeal the severity of his sentence, which was imposed following a conviction for manslaughter. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining the appeal. The primary legal issues centred around the appropriateness of the sentence given the special circumstances of the case, including the appellant's intellectual disability, the motive behind the offence, and the relevance of fresh evidence presented.
In assessing the appeal, the court considered the principle that the offender should not be allowed to take the law into their own hands, noting that this principle holds less weight when the offender has an intellectual disability. The court also evaluated the appellant's motivation for the crime, which was retaliatory due to prior sexual abuse by the victim. This retaliatory motive significantly reduced the need for personal deterrence and community protection, unless prior offences indicated that the behaviour was not isolated. The court found no evidence to suggest the appellant's behaviour was not a one-off incident.
Ultimately, the court rejected the fresh evidence presented as it did not sufficiently contribute to the sentencing considerations. The court concluded that when two offenders are sentenced concurrently, with detailed reasons provided for their respective criminality, appellate courts should exercise caution in accepting that one defendant had a justifiable sense of grievance. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.