Application for leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law and Procedure - Sentencing - relevance of matters of aggravation and mitigation under s 21A of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - Appeal - fresh evidence on sentence appeal.
2 HOWIE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon the applicant by Acting Judge Ducker. The applicant was for trial before his Honour on an indictment containing a number of charges in respect of his alleged sexual assault upon the complainant, a 50 year-old intellectually impaired male, on some date in October or November 2000. On the second day of the trial, the applicant was re-arraigned and pleaded guilty to two counts on the indictment. The Crown accepted the pleas in full satisfaction of the indictment and the jury was discharged.
3 The charges to which the applicant had pleaded guilty and for which he was to be sentenced were offences of having sexual intercourse with the complainant “a person with an intellectual disability, with the intention of taking advantage of the vulnerability of [the complainant] to sexual exploitation, knowing that [the complainant] was a person with an intellectual disability”. Each offence was contrary to s 66F(3) of the Crimes Act and carried a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 8 years.
4 His Honour sentenced the applicant on 1 August 2003 as follows:
1. imprisonment for 2 years 6 months to commence on 11 December 2003 with a non-parole period of 20 months to expire on 10 August 2005.
2. imprisonment for 4 years to commence on 11 December 2003 with a non-parole period of 3 years to expire on 10 December 2006.
The commencement date of the sentence was derived from the fact…
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 Wickham
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193
Case
[2004] NSWCCA 193
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Wickham, the defendant appealed against his sentence, challenging the weight given to aggravating and mitigating factors by the sentencing judge. The dispute arose from the defendant's conviction for a serious criminal offence, and the appeal was heard in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge appropriately assessed the relevance and weight of aggravating and mitigating factors in accordance with section 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court had to determine if the trial judge's assessment of these factors was legally sound and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.
The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the trial judge's consideration of the evidence presented and the reasoning behind the weight attributed to each factor. It was necessary to ascertain whether the trial judge correctly identified and applied the relevant legal principles in evaluating the evidence. The court also considered whether the trial judge's ultimate sentence was within the permissible range, given the assessed factors. The appeal court found that while the trial judge had considered the relevant factors, there was an error in the application of the legal principles, which led to an inappropriate weight being given to some factors. Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence was excessive.
The NSW Court of Criminal Appeal quashed the sentence and remitted the matter to the trial court for resentencing. The court emphasised the importance of correctly applying the statutory provisions when assessing aggravating and mitigating factors. It underscored the need for a clear and reasoned approach to ensure that the sentence reflects the true culpability of the offender and is proportionate to the crime committed.