Taylor v R - [2013] NSWCCA 157

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Taylor v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCCA 157

Hearing Date(s): 17 June 2013

Decision Date: 27 June 2013

Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
McCallum J at [2]
R A Hulme J at [3]

Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. Sentences imposed in the District Court confirmed but the dates of commencement and the expiry of non-parole periods are adjusted as follows:
On each of the two counts of possession of a CITES specimen, the sentences are to date from 20 October 2009. The recognizance release order is to date from 20 April 2010.
On each of the counts of receiving and disposing of stolen property, the sentences are to date from 20 April 2010. The non-parole period of the sentence for receiving stolen property is to expire on 19 April 2012. (It is noted that no non-parole period was fixed for the disposing of stolen property).
For the offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm, the sentence is to date from 20 April 2012. The non-parole period is to expire on 19 April 2014.
For the offence of unauthorised possession of more than three unregistered firearms any one of which is a prohibited firearm or pistol, the sentence is to date from 20 April 2014. The non-parole period is to expire on 19 April 2018.
For the offences of possession of a prohibited weapon and dealing with the proceeds of crime, the sentences are to date from 20 April 2014 and the non-parole periods are to expire on 19 April 2017.
Specify that the offender will be eligible for release on parole upon the expiration of the non-parole period for the offence of unauthorised possession of more than three unregistered firearms any one of which is a prohibited firearm or pistol on 19 April 2018.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL APPEAL - sentence appeal - aggregate sentence imposed where s 53A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act did not apply - mistaken accumulation with Commonwealth offences - sentence corrected by District Court under s 43 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - no jurisdictional error
CRIMINAL APPEAL - sentence appeal - manifest excess - firearms offence - substantial degree of criminality manifested by vast number of firearms - sentence not manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL APPEAL - sentence appeal - failure to take into account pre-sentence custody - error in computation corrected

Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited: Achurch v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 117
Caristo v R [2011] NSWCCA 7
Ho v Director of Public Prosecutions (1995) 82 A Crim R 80

Category: Principal judgment

Parties: Darren John Taylor (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
Mr R G Thomas
Ms J Dwyer

- Solicitors: Solicitors:
Rosemary Benet & Associates
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2009/3353
2009/147058
2009/217141

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal:

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 The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 157
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 157
Decision Date: 27 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v R involved a challenge to the sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales. Taylor was convicted on multiple charges including firearms offences and was sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales was focused on the correctness of the sentence, specifically the aggregation of sentences and the failure to consider pre-sentence custody. The appeal also contested whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the nature and extent of the criminal conduct.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the District Court had erred in its aggregation of sentences, particularly in relation to Commonwealth offences, and whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court had to determine if the District Court had erred in failing to consider the time Taylor had spent in pre-sentence custody when imposing the sentence. The appeal also questioned whether the sentence imposed was so disproportionate to the criminality that it could be considered manifestly excessive.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the District Court had correctly applied the law in relation to the aggregation of sentences, despite an initial mistake in the accumulation of Commonwealth offences, which was subsequently corrected. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the substantial degree of criminality manifested by the vast number of firearms involved. The court further held that while the District Court had failed to consider the pre-sentence custody, this was an error in computation rather than a jurisdictional error, and the sentence was not so disproportionate as to be manifestly excessive. The court dismissed the appeal.

The Supreme Court of New South Wales upheld the District Court's sentence, confirming that the aggregate sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and extent of Taylor's criminal conduct. The court clarified that the District Court had the authority to correct any computational errors and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed without altering the original sentence.

Orders