St v R

Case [2022] NSWCCA 169 10 August 2022

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: ST v R [2022] NSWCCA 169
Hearing dates: 28 March 2022
Date of orders: 10 August 2022
Decision date: 10 August 2022
Before: Ward P, Harrison J, Wright J
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal from conviction and dismiss the appeal.
2. Grant leave to appeal from sentence and dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Whether loss of tooth amounts to grievous bodily harm
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Error in indicative sentences

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 4, 35(1)(b), 59(1), 61, 61D(1), 61E(1A), 61I, 90A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 7(2)

Cases Cited:
AM v R (2012) 225 A Crim R 481; [2012] NSWCCA 203
Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cherry v R [2017] NSWCCA 150;
GAX v R (2017) 344 ALR 489; [2017] HCA 25
Goodbun v R [2020] NSWCCA 77
Hamilton (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 80
Haoui v R (2008) 188 A Crim R 331; [2008] NSWCCA 209
Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Libke v R (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30
M v R (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Mehajer v R (2014) 244 A Crim R 15; [2014] NSWCCA 167
MM v R [2018] NSWCCA 158
Morris v R (1987) 163 CLR 454; [1987] HCA 50
Mundine v R [2017] NSWCCA 97
Patsan v R [2018] NSWCCA 129
Pell v R (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35
R v JD [2018] NSWCCA 233
R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48
R v Miller [1951] VLR 346
R v Perks (1986) 41 SASR 335
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
Raumakita v R (2011) 210 A Crim R 326; [2011] NSWCCA 126
SKA v R (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13
Spies v R (2000) 201 CLR 603; [2000] HCA 43
Swan v R [2016] NSWCCA 79

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: ST (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Norrie (Applicant)
C Curtis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ross Hill & Associates Solicitors (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/00140944
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Sydney

Date of Decision:

24 August 2020

Before:

Huggett DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/00140944

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

On 18 September 2020, ST (a pseudonym) (the applicant) was found guilty of five offences related to domestic violence. Three offences comprised of assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s 59(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (Crimes Act). The other two offences were, respectively, an offence of detaining for advantage contrary to…

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 St v R

Details

AGLC: St v R [2022] NSWCCA 169
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 169
Decision Date: 10 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of St v R involved an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appellant, St, was convicted of causing grievous bodily harm to the victim, R, by punching them and causing the loss of a tooth. St appealed on the grounds that the conviction was unreasonable as the loss of a tooth did not amount to grievous bodily harm. The appeal against sentence argued that there was an error in the indicative sentencing range applied by the trial judge.

The central legal issue was whether the loss of a tooth constituted grievous bodily harm under the relevant legislation. The court was required to consider the nature and extent of the injury and its impact on the victim's health. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the trial judge had correctly applied the indicative sentencing range when determining the sentence imposed on St.

The court found that the loss of a tooth, in the circumstances of this case, did amount to grievous bodily harm. The court reasoned that the injury resulted in significant pain, required dental treatment, and had a long-term impact on the victim's health. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction. Regarding the sentence, the court determined that there was an error in the indicative sentencing range applied. The court considered the error to be material and ordered a retrial for the purpose of sentencing.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the conviction, order a retrial for the purpose of sentencing, and direct that the correct indicative sentencing range be applied in the retrial. The court's decision clarified the legal standards for determining grievous bodily harm and highlighted the importance of correctly applying sentencing guidelines.

Orders