Legal Research
Cases
R v Wright

R v Wright

Case [2017] NSWCCA 102 19 May 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Wright [2017] NSWCCA 102
Hearing dates: 5 April 2017
Date of orders: 19 May 2017
Decision date: 19 May 2017
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Beech-Jones J at [3]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: SENTENCING – Crown appeal – respondent aged 42 – four counts of sexual intercourse with 14-year-old girl – other sexual offences – received aggregate sentence of 3 years and 3 months – non-parole period of 1 year and 10 months – sentencing judge erred in characterising objective seriousness of the offence as “towards the lower end of objective seriousness” – no error in finding special circumstances – error in approach to accumulation – sentence manifestly inadequate – sentencing statistics – sentencing judge misunderstood statistics – Crown could have but did not correct error – discretion to intervene not exercised – appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Abbas, Bodiotis, Taleb and Amoun v R [2013] NSWCCA 115
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CR 520
Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Hernando [2002] NSWCCA 489
R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97
R v Nelson [2016] NSWCCA 130
R v Stoupe [2015] NSWCCA 175
Regina v DH; Regina v AH [2014] NSWCCA 326
Wakeling v R [2016] NSWCCA 33
Wong v R [2001] HCA 64; (2001) 207 CLR 584
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Appellant)
Glen Raymond Wright (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
N Williams (Crown)
L Fernandez (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/332836
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

2 December 2016

Before:

Williams SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/332836

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I have read the judgment of Beech-Jones J in draft. I agree with the orders proposed by his Honour and with his Honour’s reasons.
R A HULME J: I agree with Beech-Jones J.
BEECH-JONES J: This judgment concerns a Crown appeal against a sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Williams SC DCJ on the Respondent for three offences involving the sexual abuse of a fourteen year old girl. The publication of material capable of identifying her is prohibited (Crimes Act 1900, s 578A; Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s 15A). Accordingly she will be referred to as “MM”. These are not her initials.
On 2 December 2016, the Respondent was sentenced in the District Court for five offences to which he had pleaded guilty. The first four offences were contraventions of s 66C(3) of the Crimes Act namely having sexual intercourse with a person between the age of fourteen and…

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 Wright

Details

AGLC: R v Wright [2017] NSWCCA 102
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 102
Decision Date: 19 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Wright, the respondent, aged 42, faced a Crown appeal regarding his sentencing for four counts of sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl, along with other related sexual offences. The case was heard in the higher court of appeal, which had jurisdiction to review the original sentencing decision.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the sentencing judge erred in characterising the objective seriousness of the offence, whether there was any error in finding special circumstances, and if there was an error in the approach to the accumulation of the sentence. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the sentencing judge misunderstood relevant sentencing statistics.

The court found that while there was no error in finding special circumstances, the sentencing judge had erred in characterising the objective seriousness of the offence as "towards the lower end of objective seriousness." Additionally, the court noted an error in the approach to accumulation. However, the Crown had the opportunity to correct the error but did not do so, and the court decided not to exercise its discretion to intervene. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court upheld the original sentencing decision, but with the clarification that the objective seriousness of the offence was not towards the lower end, and the sentence was found to be manifestly inadequate.

Orders