Payne JA at [1]; Fagan J at [157]; Sweeney J at [161]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against conviction granted.
(2) Appeal against conviction dismissed.
(3) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
(4) Appeal against sentence allowed. The sentence imposed on 13 July 2022 is quashed and in lieu thereof the following sentence is imposed:
(a) The offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years and 6 months with an aggregate non-parole period of 4 years to commence on 10 August 2020.
(b) The following indicative sentences are identified:
(i) Count 1: Imprisonment for 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.
(ii) Count 2: Imprisonment for 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.
(iii) Count 3: Imprisonment for 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years.
(5) The offender is first eligible for parole on 9 August 2024
Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — judge alone trial — guilty verdicts on three counts — not guilty verdict on one count — whether reasonable doubt as to guilt of applicant on whole of the evidence
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence — Manifest excess — whether consideration of intellectual disability sufficiently reflected in sentence
Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61M and 66DA
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 21A
[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 Steel (a pseudonym) v The King
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Steel (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] NSWCCA 326
Case
[2023] NSWCCA 326
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Steel v The King, the appellant, Steel, appealed against his conviction and sentence. Steel was found guilty on three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one count of possessing an offensive weapon in a public place. The appellant's appeal against conviction argued that the verdict was unreasonable, asserting that there was reasonable doubt regarding his guilt on all counts. The appeal against sentence claimed that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the appellant's intellectual disability, resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable and if the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the appellant's intellectual disability.
The High Court considered the substantial evidence presented at trial, which included eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, and admissions by the appellant. The court noted that the jury's verdict, while not the only possible outcome, was within the range of reasonable possibilities. The court held that the jury had access to all the evidence and was properly directed on the applicable legal standards, thus affirming the guilty verdicts. Regarding the appeal against sentence, the court examined whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's intellectual disability in imposing the sentence. The court concluded that, while the disability was a relevant factor, the trial judge had adequately considered it and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, affirming the jury's verdict. The court found that the evidence supported the jury's conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the charges. The appeal against sentence was also dismissed, with the court holding that the trial judge had sufficiently considered the appellant's intellectual disability and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of considering individual circumstances, including intellectual disability, in sentencing but found no error in this case.