Sproates v R - [2009] NSWCCA 29

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
Sproates v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 29

FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/9350

HEARING DATE(S):
9/2/09

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 February 2009

PARTIES:
Brendan Sproates (Appl)
Regina (Resp/Crown)

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J Blanch J Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/9350

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Conlon DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
3/4/08

COUNSEL:
T Game SC (Appl)
N Norman (Resp/Crown)

SOLICITORS:
S O'Connor - LAC (Appl)
S Kavanagh - DPP (Resp/Crown)

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law
appeal against sentence
malicious injury with intent (s 33)
relevance of drugs and alcohol to objective seriousness of offence.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
Anderson v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 211
Mitchell & Gallagher [2007] NSWCCA 296
R v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted, but the appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2007/9350
GROVE J
BLANCH J
KIRBY J
Monday 23 February 2009

Brendan SPROATES v REGINA

Judgment

GROVE J: I agree with Kirby J.
BLANCH J: I agree with Kirby J.
KIRBY J: Application is made by Brendan Sproates for leave to appeal against his sentence. Mr Sproates surrendered himself to the Moruya Police Station on 3 July 2006 and was arrested. He acknowledged his involvement in a shooting at the Wests Leagues Club, Unanderra, in the early hours of 2 July 2006, when a patron of the club, Shane Staff, received serious injuries.
Mr Sproates was charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm (contrary to s 33 Crimes Act 1900) (maximum penalty: 25 years imprisonment with a standard non parole period of 7 years). He pleaded guilty. On 3 April 2008, Conlon DCJ sentenced Mr Sproates to imprisonment for 12 years, consisting of a non parole period of 8 years (3.7.06 to 2.7.14) and an additional term of 4 years (3.7.14 to 2.7.18).
Before setting out the grounds of appeal, I should describe the circumstances in which the offence was committed and the serious consequences for the victim.

The incident.

A number of documents were tendered at the sentencing hearing, relevant to the way in which the incident occurred. There was an agreed statement of facts, as well as the record of interview conducted by the police with Mr Sproates the day after the incident. The account provided by Mr Sproates in that interview was incomplete and, in a number of respects, plainly wrong. The remarks of the sentencing Judge largely incorporated the statement of facts.
Both the victim and Mr Sproates attended the Wests Leagues Club on the evening of 1 July 2006. The victim was alone. Mr Sproates was with his two sisters, celebrating his birthday, which was the next day. He was about to turn 25 years old. Mr Staff was a few years older. They did…

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 Sproates v R

Details

AGLC: Sproates v R [2009] NSWCCA 29
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 29
Decision Date: 23 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sproates v R, the appellant, Sproates, was convicted of causing malicious injury with intent to property, contrary to section 33 of the Crimes Act. The dispute centred on the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. Sproates appealed, arguing that the trial judge had given insufficient weight to his drug and alcohol dependency when assessing the objective seriousness of the offence. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence was flawed by not adequately considering Sproates' drug and alcohol dependency. The appellant contended that his dependency should have been taken into account as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process. The prosecution argued that the trial judge had correctly evaluated the circumstances and that the sentence was appropriate.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in not sufficiently considering Sproates' drug and alcohol dependency when assessing the objective seriousness of the offence. The court emphasised that while such dependencies do not necessarily mitigate the severity of the offence, they can be relevant in understanding the offender's circumstances and in determining the appropriate sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial judge for resentencing. The court provided clear guidance on how such factors should be considered in future sentencing decisions, ensuring a balanced approach that recognises both the objective seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders