Legal Research
Cases
Taylor v R

Taylor v R

Case [2018] NSWCCA 50 23 March 2018

Sentencing

Specific and General Deterrence

Manifest Excess

Criminal Law

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: Taylor v R [2018] NSWCCA 50
Hearing dates: 19 March 2018
Date of orders: 23 March 2018
Decision date: 23 March 2018
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Price J at [74]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – possess more than three unregistered firearms including at least one prohibited firearm contrary to s.51D(2) Firearms Act 1996 – Form 1 offences of not keeping firearms safely and possession of ammunition without a licence- firearms in Applicant’s semi-remote rural property- previous criminal history for firearms offences – whether sentencing judge erred in approach to firearms offences being committed on semi-remote rural property – public safety considerations – error not demonstrated – whether sentence manifestly excessive – objective gravity of s.51D(2) offence – need for specific and general deterrence to be reflected in sentence – manifest excess not demonstrated – appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Firearms Act 1996
Cases Cited:
Abbas v R (2013) 231 A Crim R 413; [2013] NSWCCA 115
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Basedow v R [2010] NSWCCA 76
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
MP v R [2009] NSWCCA 226
R v Brown [2006] NSWCCA 249
R v Cromarty (2004) 144 A Crim R 515; [2004] NSWCCA 54
R v Gino Stocco; R v Mark Stocco [2017] NSWSC 304
R v Lachlan (2015) 252 A Crim R 277; [2015] NSWCCA 178
R v Mahmud [2010] NSWCCA 219
R v Middlebrook [2004] NSWCCA 49
R v Naden [2013] NSWSC 759
R v Thalari (2009) 75 NSWLR 307; [2009] NSWCCA 170
R v Why [2017] NSWCCA 101
Yammine v R [2010] NSWCCA 123
Texts Cited: ---
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kelly John Taylor (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms RJ Rodger (Applicant)
Mr F Veltro (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/291128
Publication restriction: ---
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Tamworth District Court

Jurisdiction:

---

Citation:

---

Date of Decision:

11 August 2017

Before:

His Honour Judge McLennan SC

File Number(s):

2015/291128

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Johnson J and the order which he proposes.
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Kelly John Taylor, seeks leave to appeal with respect to a sentence imposed at the Tamworth District Court on 11 August 2017 for an offence of possessing more than three unregistered firearms, one being a prohibited firearm, without being authorised contrary to s.51D(2) Firearms Act 1996.
Following a plea of guilty, the Applicant was sentenced by his Honour Judge McLennan SC to imprisonment for four years and six months comprising a non-parole period of two years and six months commencing on 15 March 2017 and expiring on 14…

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 Taylor v R

Details

AGLC: Taylor v R [2018] NSWCCA 50
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 50
Decision Date: 23 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taylor appealed against his conviction and sentence, contending that the primary judge erred in his approach to the firearms offences being committed on a semi-remote rural property and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The respondent argued that the appeal should be dismissed as the sentencing judge did not make any errors in law, and the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor otherwise unjust.

The court considered the legal issues regarding whether the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the firearms offences and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court found that the primary judge did not err in considering the location of the offences and the public safety considerations. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the objective gravity of the offence, the need for specific and general deterrence, and the principles of parity. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending and was proportionate to the offence.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal. The conviction and sentence of the primary judge were affirmed, and the sentence imposed on the applicant was upheld.

Orders