R v Wran

Case [2016] NSWSC 1015 26 July 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wran [2016] NSWSC 1015
Hearing dates: 14 July 2016
Date of orders: 26 July 2016
Decision date: 26 July 2016
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) For the offence of harbouring, maintaining and assisting Michael Lee, knowing that he did murder Daniel McNulty on 10 August 2014, sentence of imprisonment for a fixed term of 1 year commencing on 13 August 2014 and expiring on 12 August 2015.
(2) For the offence that on 10 August 2014, being in company with Michael Lee and Lloyd Edward Haines, did rob Brett Fitzgerald of $650, sentence of imprisonment for 4 years commencing on 13 August 2014 expiring on 12 August 2018 with a non-parole period of 2 years expiring on 12 August 2016 and a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 12 August 2018.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – robbery in company –where offender part of a conditional agreement to rob – where not known that co-offenders were carrying weapons – where victim died from stab wounds – accessory after the fact to murder – where offender harboured principal for three days and failed to bring him to the attention of police – mental illnesses and significant drug addiction at the time of the offences – good prospects of rehabilitation – special circumstances – limited scope for general deterrence – genuine remorse – extra curial punishment – newspaper campaign – damaging headlines and articles exposing offender to psychological distress and unwanted attention from inmates and prison staff – harsh custodial conditions – where significant time spent in protective custody and solitary confinement –delay in bringing proceedings
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46; (1999) 198 CLR 111
DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Einfeld v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 87; (2010) 200 A Crim R 1
Kenny v R [2010] NSWCCA 6
R v Foster (1995) A Crim R 517
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Howard [2001] NSWCCA 309
R v Johnson [2014] NSWSC 1254
R v Patison [2003] NSWCCA 171; (2003) 143 A Crim R 118
R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 566
R v Rose [2004] NSWCCA 326
R v Scowen [2007] NSWSC 792
R v Ward [2004] NSWSC 420
R v Wilhelm [2010] NSWSC 378
Ryan v The Queen [2001] HCA 21; (2001) 206 CLR 267
The Queen v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; (1981) 147 CLR 383 at 392
Wilson v The Queen [1992] HCA 31; (1992) 174 CLR 313
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Harriet Langley Wran (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
P McGrath SC (Crown)
P Boulten SC with K Edwards (Offender)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Giddy & Crittenden (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/238659
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 6 July 2016, Harriet Langley Hickson Wran pleaded guilty to robbery in company and to being an…

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 Wran

Details

AGLC: R v Wran [2016] NSWSC 1015
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1015
Decision Date: 26 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a criminal proceeding against Wran, who was accused of being an accessory after the fact to a murder that occurred during a robbery in company. The victim died from stab wounds inflicted by the principal offender. Wran was part of a conditional agreement to commit the robbery but was unaware that his co-offenders were carrying weapons. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for Wran, considering the nature of his involvement, the circumstances of the crime, and mitigating factors such as his mental illnesses and drug addiction at the time of the offences. The court also needed to weigh the prospect of Wran's rehabilitation against the need for general deterrence.

The court considered various factors in arriving at a decision. It took into account Wran's genuine remorse, his harbouring of the principal for three days, and his failure to bring him to the attention of the police. The court also evaluated the impact of the extra-curial punishment Wran had already suffered, including a newspaper campaign that exposed him to psychological distress and unwanted attention from inmates and prison staff. The court acknowledged the harsh custodial conditions Wran had endured, including significant time spent in protective custody and solitary confinement. The court found that there were special circumstances that warranted a limited scope for general deterrence. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for Wran was one that balanced the need for punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence.

The court ordered that Wran be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific conditions to address his rehabilitation needs. The court also took into consideration the delay in bringing the proceedings and its potential impact on Wran's sentence. The final orders of the court reflected the balance between the various factors considered, aiming to achieve justice in the circumstances of the case.

Orders