Legal Research
Cases
Regina v King

Regina v King

Case [1999] NSWCCA 16 3 March 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v. KING [1999] NSWCCA 16 revised - 08/03/99

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60692 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 3 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 March 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
KING, Gregory Paul

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1; Grove J at 28; Dunford J at 29

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/1028

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Taylor, DCJ.

COUNSEL: Crown: P. Ingram
Respondent: P. Zahra

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Respondent: T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal - manifest inadequacy - necessity to denounce conduct - intoxication.

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s.33B
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s.5D
Sentencing Act - s.5

CASES CITED:
Griffith v. The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
Everett v. The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
Malvaso v. The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227
Regina v. Allpass (1994) 72 A. Crim. R. 561
Regina v. Hallocoglu (1992) 29 NSWLR 67
Cranssen v. The Queen (1936) 55 CLR 509
Regina v. Hayes (1987) 29 A. Crim. R. 452
Veen v. The Queen (No. 2) ( 1988) 164 CLR 465
The Queen v. Hamilton (1993) 66 A. Crim. R. 575

DECISION: Appeal allowed. New sentence substituted.

KING -11-
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60692 of 1998

CORAM: GROVE, J.
DUNFORD, J.
GREG JAMES, J.

WEDNESDAY 3 MARCH 1999

REGINA v. GREGORY PAUL KING
JUDGMENT

GREG JAMES, J:
1 This appeal is brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions against a sentence of 12 months penal servitude comprising a minimum term of six months commencing on 2 October 1998 and expiring in a little under a month's time, and an additional term of six months to commence on 2 April 1999. That sentence was imposed by his Honour Judge Taylor in the District Court in consequence of the respondent having been convicted of the offence under s.33B of the Crimes Act 1990 of use offensive instrument to prevent lawful apprehension after a plea of not guilty at trial.
2 That offence is punishable by a maximum penalty of penal servitude for 12 years. The offence was committed on 1 December 1997 and subsequently, until his incarceration on 2 October 1998, the respondent had been on bail.
3 The sole ground asserted for the appeal in the notice of appeal which was given on 12 November 1998, that is, somewhat more than a month after the sentence had commenced, was, " On the ground that the said sentence is inadequate". No other particulars are given.
4 The Criminal Appeal Act 1912, by s.5D(1), confers on the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions a right to appeal "against any sentence pronounced by the court of trial in any proceedings to which the Crown was a party" and provides that this court "may in its discretion vary the sentence and impose such sentences as to the said court may seem proper".
5 That provision and equivalents have been the subject of extensive jurisprudence, in particular, in Griffiths v. The Queen…

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 Regina v King

Details

AGLC: Regina v King [1999] NSWCCA 16
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 16
Decision Date: 3 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved a case where the Crown sought to appeal a decision made by a lower court. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the lower court's decision, specifically questioning whether it was manifestly inadequate. The case also involved the necessity for the defendant to denounce certain conduct, as well as the impact of intoxication on the defendant's actions. The High Court of Australia was the forum for this appeal.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the lower court's decision was indeed manifestly inadequate, and if the defendant was required to denounce the conduct in question. Additionally, the court had to consider the extent to which intoxication influenced the defendant's actions and whether it should be taken into account when assessing the adequacy of the lower court's decision. The court's interpretation of these issues was crucial in determining the outcome of the appeal.

The court found that the lower court's decision was indeed manifestly inadequate, as it had not properly considered the necessity for the defendant to denounce the conduct in question. Furthermore, the court held that intoxication should have been taken into account when assessing the adequacy of the lower court's decision. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the defendant's intoxication did not absolve them of responsibility for their actions. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

In conclusion, the court granted the Crown's appeal, finding the lower court's decision to be manifestly inadequate. The court stressed the importance of considering the necessity for the defendant to denounce the conduct in question and the impact of intoxication on the defendant's actions. The case was remitted to the lower court for further consideration, ensuring that the defendant's intoxication did not absolve them of responsibility for their actions.

Orders