Legal Research
Cases
Sorensen v R

Sorensen v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 54 14 April 2016

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: Sorensen v R [2016] NSWCCA 54
Hearing dates: 17 November 2015
Date of orders: 14 April 2016
Decision date: 14 April 2016
Before: Ward JA at [1];
Adams J at [147];
Bellew J at [148]
Decision:
1.   Grant an extension of time until 31 July 2015 to file the notice of appeal against conviction.
2.   Appeal against conviction dismissed.
3.   Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
4.   Appeal against sentence allowed.
5.   Sentences imposed by the primary judge are quashed.
6.   In lieu thereof, Michael Christian Sorensen is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 10 years commencing on 24 May 2013 and expiring on 23 May 2023, with a non-parole period of 7 years to expire on 23 May 2020.
7.   The earliest date on which Mr Sorensen will be eligible for release on parole is 24 May 2020.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – assault and detain with intent to obtain advantage – whether sentencing judge erred in taking into account “vigilante nature” of offending as aggravating factor where punishment of victim is element of offence – whether sentence manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL LAW – conviction appeal – whether verdict unreasonable or insupportable having regard to evidence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 59(2), 61M(1), 86(3), 95(1), 114(1)(a)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 6(1)
Cases Cited: Barlow v R [2008] NSWCCA 96; (2008) 184 A Crim R 187
Hanze v R [2006] NSWCCA 36
Jones v The Queen [1997] HCA 56; (1997) 191 CLR 439
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 252 CLR 601
MFA v The Queen [2002] HCA 53; (2002) 213 CLR 606
Morrison v R [2014] NSWCCA 199
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; (1994) 181 CLR 487
R v Kelly [2005] NSWCCA 280; (2005) 155 A Crim R 499
R v Mitchell; R v Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296; (2007) 177 A Crim R 94
R v Speechley [2012] NSWCCA 130; (2012) 221 A Crim R 175
R v Swan [2006] NSWCCA 47
R v Tuuta [2014] NSWCCA 40; (2014) 239 A Crim R 399
RLS v R [2012] NSWCCA 236
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; (2011) 243 CLR 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Michael Christian Sorensen (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
DA Marr (Appellant)
PG Ingram SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
L D Lock (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/00108738
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court at Parramatta

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

15 October 2015

Before:

Craigie SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/00108738

Judgment

WARD JA: On 15 October 2013, following a trial in the District Court at Parramatta, Michael Sorensen was found guilty by a jury of four offences relating to an assault on the complainant (Ms L). He was tried on a joint…

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 Sorensen v R

Details

AGLC: Sorensen v R [2016] NSWCCA 54
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 54
Decision Date: 14 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sorensen v R involved an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appellant, Sorensen, was convicted of assault and detaining with intent to obtain advantage. The sentencing judge considered the “vigilante nature” of the offending as an aggravating factor, which was contested by Sorensen. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Sorensen argued that the sentencing judge erred in taking into account the vigilante nature of the offending as an aggravating factor, as punishment of the victim is an element of the offence. He further contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the sentencing judge erred in considering the vigilante nature of the offending as an aggravating factor, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court had to determine if the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

The High Court found that the sentencing judge did not err in considering the vigilante nature of the offending as an aggravating factor. The court held that the vigilante nature of the offending was a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate in the circumstances of the case. In relation to the conviction appeal, the court found that the verdict was not unreasonable or insupportable having regard to the evidence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. The court held that the verdict was supported by the evidence and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

Orders