R v Watts - [2000] NSWCCA 167

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina -v- Watts [2000] NSWCCA 167

FILE NUMBER(S):
60054/99

HEARING DATE(S): 14/04/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/04/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
Michael Arthur Watts

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J Hulme J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 97/61/0062

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL:
Mr Mr Grogan (Crown)
Mr J S Stratton (App)

SOLICITORS:
S.E O'Connor
T A Murphy

CATCHWORDS:
Possess Offensive Weapon
Sentence excessive
Totality

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
Leave granted
Appellant re-sentenced

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60054 of 1999

HULME J
DOWD J

FRIDAY, 14 APRIL 2000

REGINA v MICHAEL ARTHUR WATTS

DOWD J: The applicant was indicted before Freeman DCJ and a jury on 1 February 1999 for one count of possessing an offensive weapon with an intent to commit an indictable offence in breach of s 33B(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Act”), and three counts of use offensive implement with intent to commit an indictable offence pursuant to s 33B(a) of the Act. Both offences carry a maximum penalty of twelve years penal servitude.
The appellant pleaded not guilty to each count, and on 10 February 1999 he was found guilty of counts one to three and not guilty of count four. The applicant was sentenced to a minimum term of six years and an additional term of two years consisting on the first count of a fixed term of two years imprisonment to commence on 10 February 1999 and to expire on 9 February 2001.
On the second count of two years imprisonment was to commence on 10 February 2001 cumulative on that earlier two year sentence, and to expire on 9 February 2003, and on the third count cumulative on both of those offences a minimum term of two years imprisonment to commence on 10 February 2003 and to expire on 9 February 2005, and an additional term of two years to commence on 10 February 2005 and to expire on 9 February 2007.
The facts, shortly, were that on Sunday, 29 December 1996 the applicant approached a small fire which had been started by members of the Toshack family who were camping near the Wyangala Dam. The camp fire was ignited in an area between that family campsite and another family campsite where the applicant had pitched his tent.
The applicant asked a member of the first family if she minded if he sat near the fire. She indicated that she did mind. The applicant commenced asserting his right to sit near the fire, and was asked to leave by the husband of the woman. The applicant refused and became more intransigent. He then got into a brawl with two men and threw a punch and whacked one of them and the applicant left.
The applicant obtained a rifle from his car and pointed it at the head of one of the men and said to him, "How'd you like it if I blew your head off?" The appellant…

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 Watts

Details

AGLC: R v Watts [2000] NSWCCA 167
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 167
Decision Date: 14 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Watts involved the appellant who was convicted of possessing an offensive weapon, specifically a knife, in a public place. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 18 months, which he deemed excessive. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court failed to consider the totality of the circumstances, including his remorse and lack of criminal history.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and failed to account for the principle of totality. The court was required to examine the circumstances of the case, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and his personal circumstances, to determine if the sentence was appropriate. The appellant's legal team contended that the sentence did not reflect the totality of the circumstances and was disproportionate to the offence committed.

The court examined the sentence imposed on the appellant, taking into account the principles of sentencing outlined in the relevant legislation. The court acknowledged that the appellant's possession of an offensive weapon in a public place was a serious offence, but also considered his lack of criminal history, expressions of remorse, and other mitigating factors. The court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances in sentencing, but ultimately upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment imposed on the appellant. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, including the principle of totality, but ultimately found that the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Orders