Legal Research
Cases
R v Wainwright

R v Wainwright

Case [2014] NSWDC 368 12 June 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wainwright [2014] NSWDC 368
Hearing dates: 20/02/2014, 14/03/2014, 21/03/2014, 06/06/ 2014
Decision date: 12 June 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 1 month with a non-parole period of 5 years.

Catchwords: Criminal - Sentence, cause grievous bodily harm with intent, plea of guilty, remorse.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
R v Elturk [2014] NSWCCA 61
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hemsley[2004] NSWCCA 228
Markarian v R, (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Totten [2003] NSWCCA 207
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions
Trent Wainwright - Offender
Representation: Counsel:
Mr Bowers – Crown
Mr Ozen - Offender

File Number(s): 2010/15096

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Trent Keith Wainwright appears today for sentence in relation to an offence to which he pleaded guilty on an indictment presented on or about 20 February 2013 which alleges, or alleged, that he on 16 January 2010 at Mortdale in the State of New South Wales did cause grievous bodily harm to Tamara Lee with intent to do grievous bodily harm to her.
This offence is an offence contrary to s 33(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900. It carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of seven years imprisonment. The offence to which the prisoner pleaded guilty was in discharge of an indictment that principally alleged against the accused that he did cause grievous bodily harm to the victim with intent to murder her.
The prisoner was arrested on 16 January 2010. He remained in custody, as I am informed, until 17 February 2012. He was granted bail and remained on bail, as I understand the matter, until he went back into custody on 25 October 2013. He went into custody on 25 October 2013 because he was charged in relation to an unrelated offence of stalking or intimidating with intent to cause fear to another person.
I did not refuse bail in relation to the current matter until it came before me on 16 December 2013, having the matter before me off and on from the time that the prisoner pleaded guilty on 20 February 2013. I refused bail on the basis that the prisoner had been charged with this other matter. I will deal with the issue of the granting of bail to the prisoner subsequently by the Supreme Court which frankly at the time dismayed me. But I have an understanding now of the reasons the Supreme Court would have granted bail to the prisoner on 6 February 2014.
The prisoner appeared off bail before this Court in March this year and I again…

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 Wainwright

Details

AGLC: R v Wainwright [2014] NSWDC 368
Case: [2014] NSWDC 368
Decision Date: 12 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wainwright, the defendant, Wainwright, was convicted for causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where Wainwright had pleaded guilty to the charge. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into consideration the circumstances of the offence and the plea of guilty.

The central legal issue for the court was to decide on the appropriate term of imprisonment and non-parole period that reflected the gravity of the offence while also considering the defendant's remorse and plea of guilty. The court considered various factors, including the nature of the harm inflicted, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact on the victim. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to protect the community while also acknowledging the defendant's remorse.

In delivering the sentence, the court acknowledged Wainwright's guilty plea and expressions of remorse but found the offence to be of significant seriousness. The court imposed a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 1 month, with a non-parole period of 5 years. The court found that this sentence balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the defendant's remorse and the principles of justice.

The orders of the court were that Wainwright be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 1 month, with a non-parole period of 5 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 1 month with a non-parole period of 5 years.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

R v Wainwright [2014] NSWDC 368

Most Recent Citation

Wainwright v R [2016] NSWCCA 19

Cases Citing This Decision

State of New South Wales v Wainwright (Final) [2020] NSWSC 104
Citation 1 (Para 63)

…he sentence of imprisonment was imposed on the offender”. I have already recounted the facts from the decision of Judge Norrish in R v Wainwright [2014] NSWDC 368 above at [43]. His Honour delivered a lengthy and detailed judgment explaining how he arrived at the ultimate sentence. Some of his Honour’s observations…
State of New South Wales v Wainwright (Preliminary) [2019] NSWSC 1603
Citation 2 (Para 73)

…I have had regard to the views of the sentencing court at the time the sentence of imprisonment was imposed on the defendant: R v Wainwright [2014] NSWDC 368. Norrish QC DCJ gave a discount of 10% for the plea. His Honour took into account, as an aggravating factor, that the offence was committed against a vulnerab…
Wainwright v R [2016] NSWCCA 19
Citation 3

…015096 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Criminal Citation: [2014] NSWDC 368 Date of Decision: 12 June 2014 Before: Norrish QC DCJ File Number(s): 2010/015096…
Walton v The Queen [1989] HCA 9
Citation 4

…DEANE J: The facts and issues involved in this appeal are set out in the judgment of the Chief Justice and the joint judgment of Wilson, Dawson and Toohey JJ. I agree with much of what is written in those judgments. In particular, I agree that evidence of a relevant out of court statement is admissi…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Elturk v R [2014] NSWCCA 61
Citation 1 (Para 94)

…I was referred to the decision of Elturk [2014] NSWCCA 61 in relation to the issue of moral culpability of the prisoner when a person’s mental state, particularly mental instability, arises for consideration as being relevant to sentencing. In that judgment the Court of Criminal Appeal, consistent with Muldrock and…
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
Citation 2 (Para 93)

…d in Muldrock at [58] and recently discussed in the decisions of Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37, particularly at [44] - [46] and Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 at [57]. In Muldrock it was held by the High Court that the offender’s mental condition limited his moral culpability and required less emphasis to be…
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Citation 3 (Para 93)

…he objective facts and could be a matter of significance as was identified in Muldrock at [58] and recently discussed in the decisions of Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37, particularly at [44] - [46] and Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 at [57]. In Muldrock it was held by the High Court that the offender’s mental…
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Citation 4 (Para 93)

…In Mr Muldrock’s instance ( Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120), he was mentally disabled. The Court held that moral culpability was a matter to be considered in sentencing independently of the objective facts and could be a matter of significance as was identified in Muldrock at [58] and recently discussed in the decis…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Citation 5

…uilty, remorse. Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Elturk [2014] NSWCCA 61 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Hemsley[2004] NSWCCA 228 Markarian v R, (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 C…
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Citation 6 (Para 93)

…tter to be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence with the holistic approach recommended by the High Court in Markarian v R , (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [51].…
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
Citation 7

…Cases Cited: Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Elturk [2014] NSWCCA 61 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Hemsley[2004] NSWCCA 228 Markarian v R, (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 38…
R v Totten [2003] NSWCCA 207
Citation 8 (Para 26)

…With regard to the issue of being in protection, in the decision of Totten ([2003] NSWCCA 207) the Court of Criminal Appeal held that the sentencing Judge had erred in failing to take into account the circumstances that at least part of the sentence, and the prisoner already has served part of the sentence, a substa…
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 383
Citation 9 (Para 6)

…o a discount, in my view, of 10%. The Crown suggested the range of discount available under the ‘guideline judgment’ of R v Thomson ; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 was between 5 and 10%. It was acknowledged in submissions by Mr Ozen that the discount would be at the lower end of the discretionary range. This is a ma…

Legislation Cited

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 2)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Wainwright [2014] NSWDC 368
Hearing dates:	20/02/2014, 14/03/2014, 21/03/2014, 06/06/ 2014
Decision date:	12 June 2014
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 8 years and 1 month with a non-parole period of 5 years.
Catchwords:	Criminal - Sentence, cause grievous bodily harm with intent, plea of guilty, remorse.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 R v Elturk [2014] NSWCCA 61 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67 R v Hemsley[2004] NSWCCA 228 Markarian v R, (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v R (2011) 244 CLR 120 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 R v Totten [2003] NSWCCA 207
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Trent Wainwright - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Bowers – Crown Mr Ozen - Offender
File Number(s):	2010/15096