Legal Research
Cases
R v Yardley

R v Yardley

Case [2019] NSWCCA 291 20 December 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Yardley [2019] NSWCCA 291
Hearing dates: 11 November 2019
Date of orders: 20 December 2019
Decision date: 20 December 2019
Before: Meagher JA at [1]
Bellew J at [2]
Lonergan J at [90]
Decision:
(1) The Crown appeal is allowed.
(2) The sentence imposed by Acting Judge Conlon SC in the District Court of New South Wales is quashed.
(3) In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to a non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months imprisonment commencing on 19 July 2019 and expiring on 18 April 2024.
(4) An additional term of 1 year and 7 months imprisonment is imposed commencing on 19 April 2024 and expiring on 18 November 2025.

Catchwords: CRIME – appeals – appeal against sentence – by Crown on ground of manifest inadequacy – manslaughter – respondent received a non-parole period of 18 months with an additional term of 2 years – sentencing judge made finding of special circumstances – sentencing judge described offence as “falling below mid-range” and “towards lower end of range” – finding of objective seriousness did not reflect characteristics of offending – finding of special circumstances not justified – non-parole period did not reflect seriousness of offending – respondent re-sentenced
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General for NSW v McMahon Mining Services Pty Limited [2019] NSWCCA 8
Butters v R [2010] NSWCCA 1
CMB v Attorney-General for NSW (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9
Collier v R [2012] NSWCCA 213
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
DPP v Darcy-Shillingsworth [2017] NSWCCA 244
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Hiron v R [2007] NSWCCA 336
Jonson v R [2016] NSWCCA 286; (2016) 263 A Crim R 268
Maglis v R [2010] NSWCCA 247
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Merrick v R [2017] NSWCCA 264
Pfitzner v R [2010] NSWCCA 314
R v Barker [2016] NSWCCA 193
R v Blacklidge (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 12 December 1995, unrep)
R v Bryce (No 5) [2014] NSWSC 1184
R v DH; R v AH [2014] NSWCCA 326
R v Fidow [2004] NSWCCA 172
R v Forbes [2005] NSWCCA 377; (2005) 160 A Crim R 1
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
R v Munter [2009] NSWSC 158
R v Phelps; R v Zalapa [2018] NSWCCA 191
R v Pullen [2018] NSWCCA 264
R v Tuuta [2014] NSWCCA 40; (2014) 239 A Crim R 399
R v West [2011] NSWCCA 91
Simpson v R [2019] NSWCCA 137
Stephenson v R [2008] NSWCCA 266
Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina – Appellant
David Alan Yardley – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
B Hatfield – Appellant
S Howell – Respondent
Solicitors:
C Hyland, Solicitor for Public…

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 Yardley

Details

AGLC: R v Yardley [2019] NSWCCA 291
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 291
Decision Date: 20 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Yardley was brought by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, who had been found guilty of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentence to determine if it was manifestly inadequate. The respondent had been sentenced to a non-parole period of 18 months with an additional term of 2 years. The sentencing judge had found special circumstances and described the offence as falling below the mid-range and towards the lower end of the range.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, particularly considering the sentencing judge's findings of special circumstances and the characterisation of the offence's seriousness. The court had to assess whether these findings accurately reflected the nature and circumstances of the offence and whether the non-parole period was commensurate with the seriousness of the crime committed.

In delivering its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge's finding of special circumstances was not justified. The court concluded that the objective seriousness of the offending did not align with the judge's characterisation and that the non-parole period did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crime. As a result, the Court of Appeal deemed the sentence manifestly inadequate and proceeded to re-sentence the respondent. The court imposed a new sentence that better reflected the seriousness of the manslaughter offence.

The final orders of the court included a re-sentencing of the respondent, with specific details of the new sentence not provided in the excerpt. This decision underscores the importance of aligning the sentence with the objective seriousness of the offence, particularly in cases involving findings of special circumstances.

Orders