Legal Research
Cases
Simpson v The Queen

Simpson v The Queen

Case [2015] NSWCCA 60 14 April 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Simpson v R [2015] NSWCCA 60
Hearing dates: 13 March 2015
Date of orders: 14 April 2015
Decision date: 14 April 2015
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Simpson J at [2]; Schmidt J at [3]
Decision:
Leave to appeal be granted, but the appeal be dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – leave to appeal against sentence – mental illness – special circumstances – manifest excess – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 (NSW) (repealed)
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [1990] HCA 18; (1990) 169 CLR 525
Cranshaw v R [2009] NSWCCA 80
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 202 CLR 321
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Jackson v R [2010] NSWCCA 162
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; (2011) 244 CLR 120
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264
R v SJD [2004] NSWCCA 18
Spaliviero v R [2012] NSWCCA 189
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Vuni v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 171
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Danny William Simpson
Regina
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms A Francis (Applicant
Mr N Adams (Crown)
Solicitors:
S E O’Connor – Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
J Pheils – Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2011/253682
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal Law

Date of Decision:

21 February 2014

Before:

Conlon SCJ

File Number(s):

2011/253682

Judgment

MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Schmidt J.
SIMPSON J: I agree with Schmidt J.
SCHMIDT J: The applicant, Mr Danny Simpson, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by Conlon DCJ in February 2014 after he was convicted at trial of one offence under s 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and another offence under s 35(4) of reckless wounding. They were both committed within a short period on or about 5 August 2011, against the same victim.
The sentences imposed were:

Count 1 – Assault occasioning actual bodily harm in company under s 59(2) of the Crimes Act with a maximum term of 7 years imprisonment and no standard non-parole period: A fixed term of 18 months imprisonment to commence on 28 July 2013 and expire on 27 January 2015.
Count 2 – Reckless wounding under s 35(4) of the Crimes Act with a maximum term of 7 years and a standard non-parole period of 3 years: Imprisonment for a term of 4 years, comprised of a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months to commence on 28 July 2013 and to expire on 27 April…

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 Simpson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Simpson v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 60
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 60
Decision Date: 14 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Simpson was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court was asked to consider whether the appeal against his sentence should be allowed, specifically focusing on his mental illness and the special circumstances of the case. The central issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the mitigating factors of Simpson's mental state at the time of the offence. The court was required to balance the severity of the crime against the mitigating factors, including Simpson's diagnosed mental illness and the impact this had on his culpability.

The court considered the trial judge's assessment of the evidence regarding Simpson's mental health and the impact this had on his criminal responsibility. The court also examined the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime committed. After a thorough review of the evidence and legal principles, the court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately considered Simpson's mental health and the special circumstances of the case. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and therefore, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

In dismissing the appeal, the court emphasised the importance of a comprehensive and balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender. The court highlighted that while Simpson's mental illness was a significant mitigating factor, it did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court ultimately upheld the trial judge's decision, reaffirming the need for a fair and just outcome in criminal cases involving complex mitigating factors. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the unique circumstances of the offender.

Orders