T v The Queen - [2015] NSWCCA 28

Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	T v R
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2015] NSWCCA 28
Hearing Date(s):	27 February 2015
Decision Date:	20 March 2015
Before:	Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]; Harrison J at [2]; R A Hulme J at [38].
Decision:	(1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Dismiss the appeal.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - assistance to authorities – whether discount for assistance erroneous having regard to level of assistance, risks to applicant and difficult custodial conditions – whether sentences manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited:	House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 R v Durocher-Yvon [2003] NSWCCA 299; (2003) 58 NSWLR 581 R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97; (2004) 145 A Crim R 304 R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92; (2006) 172 A Crim R 151 SZ v R [2007] NSWCCA 19; (2007)168 A Crim R 249 Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	T (Applicant) Crown (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: J Stratton SC (Applicant) K Alder (Respondent) Solicitors: Justinian Legal (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecution (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2011/281081 and 2011/363927
Publication Restriction:	A non-publication order restricts publication of anything capable of identifying the applicant
Decision under appeal:
Court or Tribunal:	District Court of New South Wales
Date of Decision:	24 April 2014
Before:	Charteris DCJ
File Number(s):	2011/281081 and 2011/363927

JUDGMENT

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Harrison J.
HARRISON J: On 18 March 2014 the applicant pleaded guilty to four counts on two indictments and was sentenced by his Honour Charteris DCJ in the District Court of New South Wales at Sydney on 24 April 2014 to an aggregate sentence of 11 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 4 months as follows:
(1)On a count of being armed with an offensive weapon he did assault with intent to rob, to an indicative sentence (taking into account two offences on a Form 1) of imprisonment for 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months. This is an offence contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years.
(2)On a count of steal a motor vehicle, to an indicative sentence of imprisonment for 1 year and 9 months with a non-parole period of 14 months. This is an offence contrary to ss 117 and 154(1) (a) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years.
(3)On a count of discharging a firearm in a public place, to an indicative sentence (taking into account an offence on a Form 1) of imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. This is an offence contrary to s 93G (1) (b) of the Crimes Act and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years.
(4)On a count of possess prohibited…

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 T v The Queen

Details

AGLC: T v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 28
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 28
Decision Date: 20 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the matter of T v The Queen was heard, where the applicant sought to appeal against his criminal sentence. The applicant, T, had been convicted of multiple offences and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. T appealed on the grounds that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and that the trial judge had erred in not granting a discount for his assistance to the authorities. The applicant argued that his assistance was significant, and that the judge had not adequately considered the risks to T's personal safety and the difficult conditions of his imprisonment.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the discount for T's assistance to the authorities was erroneous, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the extent of T's assistance and whether it warranted a discount, as well as the level of risk and hardship T faced during and after his imprisonment. The court examined the principles of sentencing in Australia, particularly the need to consider the circumstances of the offence, the offender, and the interests of society.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not erred in not granting a discount for T's assistance. The court held that while T had provided some assistance, it was not of the level or nature that warranted a significant discount. Furthermore, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct. The court emphasised that the sentencing judge had considered T's personal circumstances and the risks to his safety, and had imposed a sentence that was proportionate to the offences committed.

In light of the above, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute a manifest excess. The applicant's appeal was thus unsuccessful, and the original sentence remained in place.

Orders