Regina v Magrin and Watson - [2000] NSWCCA 346

CITATION: REGINA v. MAGRIN & WATSON [2000] NSWCCA 346

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60157 of 2000; 60158 of 2000

HEARING DATE(S): Thursday 31 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 August 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v. MAGRIN, Gregory Allan
REGINA v. WATSON Graeme Joseph

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P; Levine J; Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/3306; 99/21/3038

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ford, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: P.G. Berman
Magrin: M. Austin
Watson: P.M. Winch

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Magrin: Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Services
Watson: Marsdens

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal - Crown appeals against asserted inadequacy of sentence considered - complicity in very serious assault - assistance in hiring assailant - injuries to victim not within contemplation of respondents - Regina v. Stokes & Difford applied - sentences not inadequate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Griffiths (1997) 137 CLR 293
Everett (1994) 181 CLR 295
Allpass (1994) 72 A. Crim. R. 561
Kalache [2000] NSWCCA 2
Cranssen (1936) 55 CLR 509
Histollo Pty. Limited v. Director-General of National Parks & Wildlife Service (CCA, unreported 10.12.98)
Symonds (1995) 79 A. Crim. R. 31
Kurtic (1996) 85 A. Crim. R. 57
Stokes & Difford (1990) 51 A. Crim. R. 25

DECISION: In each case, appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60157 of 2000
No. 60158 of 2000

CORAM: MASON, P.
LEVINE, J.
GREG JAMES, J.

THURSDAY 31 AUGUST 2000

REGINA v. GREGORY ALLAN MAGRIN
REGINA v. GRAEME JOSEPH WATSON
JUDGMENT
1 MASON, P: I invite Greg James, J. to deliver the first judgment. 2 GREG JAMES, J: Both of these matters are appeals by the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of sentences imposed in the District Court by his Honour Judge Ford. It is convenient to deal with both together. 3 The appeals are brought under s.5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. It is asserted in respect of each sentence that it is inadequate. I understand that it is intended to assert by this that the sentences were "in error in point of principle", as is referred to by Sir Garfield Barwick in Griffiths v. The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 at 310 and if allowed to stand would be productive of the kind of manifest inadequacy or inconsistency in sentencing standards as is referred to by the High Court in Everett v. The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 at 300. Appeals brought in those circumstances are appeals in which the Director exercises the exceptional power vested in him by s.5D to invoke the court's function to lay down principles for the governance and guidance of sentencing courts in such circumstances as apply in the instant cases. 4 It is the submission made here, and as I understand it underlying the appeal, that each of the sentences is in their duration and nature so far outside the permissible range of the exercise of a proper discretion by the sentencing judge as to require…

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 Magrin and Watson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Magrin and Watson [2000] NSWCCA 346
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 346
Decision Date: 31 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Regina v Magrin and Watson involved the Crown, acting on behalf of the state, appealing against the sentences imposed on Magrin and Watson for their involvement in a very serious assault. The respondents had played a role in assisting the hiring of the assailant, although the extent of the injuries sustained by the victim was not within their contemplation at the time of the offence. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the primary issue was to determine whether the sentences imposed on the respondents were inadequate. The court was required to assess the nature of the respondents' involvement in the offence and the level of culpability they bore.

The court considered whether the sentences were inadequate in light of the serious nature of the offence and the respondents' level of complicity. The appeal hinged on whether the respondents' involvement was significant enough to warrant a harsher sentence. The court applied the principles set out in Regina v. Stokes & Difford, which established that the court should consider the totality of the circumstances, including the degree of involvement and culpability of the respondents. The court examined the respondents' roles in the planning and execution of the assault, as well as the severity of the injuries inflicted on the victim.

After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the sentences imposed on the respondents were not inadequate. The court found that the respondents' involvement was significant, and their culpability warranted the sentences handed down. The court determined that the sentences adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the respondents' roles in it. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances when determining the appropriate sentence for complicity in a serious assault.

Orders