R v WC

Case [2024] NSWDC 98

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v WC [2024] NSWDC 98
Hearing dates: 22 March 2024
Date of orders: 05 April 2024
Decision date: 05 April 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Priestley SC DCJ
Decision:

See [40]

Catchwords:

CRIME — Violent offences — Reckless wounding

CRIME — Public order offences — Affray

CRIME — Summary offences — Custody of knife in public place or school

CRIME — Violent offences — Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001

Cases Cited:

Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244

Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCA 186

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 163 ALD 1

McNabb v DPP [2021] NSWCA 298

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Rex (The Crown)
WC (The Offender)
Representation: Solicitors:
Buckner for DPP
Winn for WC
File Number(s): 2021/00134831
Publication restriction: NA

JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal pursuant to section 18 the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act.

  2. The nature of a s18 appeal has been subject of numerous Court of Appeal and Court of Criminal Appeal decisions. Based on cases such as Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 and Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52 the approach to a section 18 appeal can be summarised as follows:

  1. An appeal against conviction is to proceed by way of a rehearing on the basis of evidence given in the original Local Court proceedings: s18(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, with fresh evidence permissible with leave.

  2. The appellate judge is to form their own judgment of the facts while recognising the advantage enjoyed by the magistrate who saw and heard the witnesses called in the hearing: Charara v R [2006] NSWCCA 244 at [18]

  3. The Court is entitled to consider the reasons of the magistrate including an assessment of credibility issues because the appellate function could not properly take place without reference to them: Charara v R [2006] at [23]-[24]

  4. The Court is obliged to give the judgment which in its opinion ought to have been given in the first instance: Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 at [23].

  5. The Court is not obliged in every case to undertake a complete review of the whole evidence and form its own view of the appellant’s guilt regardless of the issues raised by the appellant. The extent of the review will depend on the circumstances of the case and the kind of error alleged: Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCA 186 at [44].

  1. The approach may also be described in the way stated by Justice Gageler (as he then was) in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW (2018) 163 ALD 1 as the “correctness standard” which was his Honour’s way of describing the standard being spoken of in Fox v Percy. With respect that approach is entirely in line with what was said by Bell P (as he then was) at paragraphs [25] through to [28] of

Continue reading R v WC

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v WC [2024] NSWDC 98
Case
[2024] NSWDC 98
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v WC was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, WC, was charged with multiple offences following an incident in which a group of people, including the appellant, were involved in a physical altercation. The charges against WC included engaging in an affray, possessing a knife in a public place, and recklessly wounding another individual. The appellant contested the charges, leading to a trial at which the facts and evidence were presented and examined. The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had proven the charges against WC beyond reasonable doubt and, if so, to impose an appropriate sentence.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of various criminal offences under Queensland law. The primary question was whether the prosecution had established the elements of the charges of affray, possessing a knife in public, and recklessly wounding another person. The court had to examine the evidence, including witness statements and the circumstances of the incident, to ascertain whether the appellant's actions met the criteria for these offences. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appellant's actions were justified or could be excused under any relevant defences.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully proven the charges against WC. The evidence showed that the appellant had been involved in an affray, had possession of a knife in a public place, and had recklessly wounded another individual. The court emphasised the seriousness of the appellant's actions, noting the potential for significant harm to others. The court also considered the appellant's background and the circumstances leading to the incident but found that these did not absolve the appellant of responsibility. Based on these findings, the court sentenced the appellant to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the severity of the offences and the need to deter future similar conduct.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant be imprisoned for a period of three years and eight months, with a non-parole period of two years and two months. The sentence reflected the gravity of the appellant's actions and the need to uphold public safety and confidence in the criminal justice system. The court also ordered that the appellant pay a fine and comply with other conditions as specified in the judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [40]

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.