Teece v The The King - [2022] NSWCCA 265

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Teece v R [2022] NSWCCA 265
Hearing dates: 24 October 2022
Decision date: 15 December 2022
Before: Garling J at [1];
Button J at [2];
Wilson J at [74]
Decision:
1) Leave to appeal, including out of time, granted.
2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Manifest excess – Parity – Misapplication of principle – Error in fact finding – Where two judges sentenced co-offenders separately – Where appellate court does not go behind fact finding – Evaluative assessment of each sentencing judge as to objective findings and weight given to subjective features – Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
House v the King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46
Patel v R [2022] NSWCCA 93
PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
Rae v R [2011] NSWCCA 211
Tran v R (Cth) [2020] NSWCCA 310
WM v R [2020] NSWCCA 96

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Matthew Teece (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Phillips (Applicant)
A Bonnor (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Stidwill Solicitors (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/00225907
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

11 December 2020

Before:

King SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2019/00225907

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

Mr Teece (the applicant) sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on him on 11 December 2020 by Judge King SC in the District Court of NSW. The sentence was imposed for an offence of possessing an offensive weapon in company with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely intimidation, as well as two Commonwealth offences of using a carriage service to menace. The applicant received a total term of imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months, with a head sentence of imprisonment for 5 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years imposed for the single State offence.

The applicant pressed three interrelated grounds of appeal. First, that the applicant has a justifiable sense of grievance with regard to the sentence imposed for the State offence when compared to the sentence imposed on the co-offender. Secondly, that the sentence is manifestly excessive. And finally, that a number of errors of fact and sentencing principle caused error in the sentence imposed.

Aspects of the remarks on sentence that were generally relied upon to advance the grounds of appeal included: the treatment of the applicant’s decision to proceed to a trial by jury and its impact on findings of remorse and…

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 Teece v The The King

Details

AGLC: Teece v The The King [2022] NSWCCA 265
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 265
Decision Date: 15 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Teece v The King involved an appeal against the sentence imposed by a lower court. The appellant, Teece, was convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced by two different judges. Each judge imposed a sentence separately, leading to a disparity in the sentences. Teece sought an appeal, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the principle of parity was misapplied. The appeal was heard by a higher court, which was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether there had been any error in the application of legal principles.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the principle of parity between co-offenders had been correctly applied. The court had to assess the sentences given by each judge and determine if there was any error in the application of legal principles, particularly in relation to the principle of parity and the evaluative assessment of the facts. The court also had to consider whether it was appropriate to go behind the fact-finding of the lower court, as the appellate court generally does not reassess the facts unless there is an error in the application of legal principles.

The court found that the principle of parity, which requires that co-offenders receive similar sentences unless there are significant differences in their roles, had not been misapplied. The court evaluated each sentencing judge’s assessment of the facts and the weight given to subjective features. The court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and that the lower court's findings were not in error. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the original sentences imposed by the lower court. The court did not find any misapplication of legal principles or manifest excess in the sentences, thereby upholding the decisions of the lower court.

Orders