Taylor v R - [2015] NSWCCA 12

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Taylor v R [2015] NSWCCA 12
Hearing dates: 9 February 2015
Decision date: 18 February 2015
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Simpson J at [36];
Davies J at [37]
Decision:
(1)Grant leave to appeal.
(2)Dismiss the appeal.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether principle of accumulation and totality correctly applied

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – appeal against sentence – whether maximum two year sentence in the Local Court a limit on the maximum prescribed sentence
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – appeal against sentence – leniency – whether delay in prosecution caused by offender entitles to leniency – whether an earlier conviction for a later in time offence can diminish leniency
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 5, 21A
Cases Cited: R v Doan [2000] NSWCCA 317; 50 NSWLR 115
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
TT v R [2014] NSWCCA 206
Veen v The Queen [No 2] [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tracey Karen Taylor (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms L Rowan (Applicant)
Ms N Williams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Kernaghan & Associates (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/309678
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

11 April 2014

Before:

Frearson DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/309678

Judgment

BASTEN JA: On 11 April 2014 the applicant, Tracey Karen Taylor, was sentenced by Judge Frearson SC in the District Court on four counts of assault, two being common assaults and two being assaults occasioning actual bodily harm.
Following a trial on five counts, to which the applicant pleaded not guilty, she was acquitted on count 2 but convicted by a jury on counts 1, 3, 4 and 5. The victim of the assaults, Louise O’Brien, was the daughter of a friend of the applicant. She lived with the applicant and her family for approximately three years and eight months from February 2005 until the last day she was seen alive, being 12 October 2008.
It is appropriate to refer to Ms O’Brien by name. Although the law is generally protective of the identity, and hence the privacy, of children involved in criminal proceedings in any way, in some circumstances that protective purpose may have unacceptable consequences. As will be noted below, Ms O’Brien was subjected to degrading and humiliating treatment as a child, which continued after her death. To refer to her in this judgment merely as “the victim”, or otherwise anonymously, is to perpetuate the denial of her humanity. While there is a statutory prohibition on the publication of the name of a child to whom criminal proceedings relate,[1] which applies even if the person is deceased at the time of the publication or broadcast,[2] that prohibition does not apply to “an official report of the proceedings of a court”[3] and hence does not apply to this judgment. The…

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 [2015] NSWCCA 12
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 12
Decision Date: 18 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Taylor, appealed against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Taylor was convicted of drug-related offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The primary judge sentenced Taylor to a term of imprisonment, taking into account various factors, including Taylor's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence. Taylor argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the principle of accumulation and totality was not correctly applied. Taylor also contended that the maximum two-year sentence in the Local Court was a limit on the maximum prescribed sentence.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the principle of accumulation and totality was correctly applied. The court noted that Taylor's criminal history was extensive and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court also considered whether the maximum two-year sentence in the Local Court was a limit on the maximum prescribed sentence. The court held that the two-year sentence was not a limit on the maximum prescribed sentence. The court further considered whether delay in prosecution caused by Taylor entitled him to leniency. The court held that delay in prosecution caused by Taylor did not entitle him to leniency. The court also considered whether an earlier conviction for a later in time offence could diminish leniency. The court held that an earlier conviction for a later in time offence could diminish leniency.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the principle of accumulation and totality was correctly applied. The court also held that the two-year sentence in the Local Court was not a limit on the maximum prescribed sentence. The court further held that delay in prosecution caused by Taylor did not entitle him to leniency and that an earlier conviction for a later in time offence could diminish leniency.

Orders