The Queen v Robert Craig Taylor

[2003] ACTCA 12

THE QUEEN v ROBERT CRAIG TAYLOR [2003] ACTCA 12
(12 May 2003)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA  34 - 2002  
No. SCC 63 of 2002  

Judges: Higgins CJ, Crispin P, Weinberg J        
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:  12 May 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 34 - 2002 
  )          No. SCC 63 of 2002
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN           

Appellant

AND:ROBERT CRAIG TAYLOR          

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P, Weinberg J        
Date:  12 May 2003
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 34 - 2002   
  )          No. SCC 63 of 2002    
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN           

Appellant

AND:ROBERT CRAIG TAYLOR          

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P, Weinberg J        
Date:  12 May 2003
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIGGINS CJ:

1. For my part I note and understand the director’s submissions that no specific finding made by his Honour Gray J is challenged. I would certainly adopt his submission that this was a serious domestic assault and it is certainly the case, for my part at least, that no response other than a custodial sentence would have been warranted in the circumstances. 

1. But it is another thing to say that his Honour’s sentence is therefore manifestly inadequate. That is so, even if I would, if faced with a similar circumstance (on the impression that I have from the papers at least) have been inclined to impose a higher sentence than was indeed imposed.  That is not the test, as the authorities make it clear.  The sentence must be manifestly inadequate.  The sentence in question is in fact half of the maximum available. 

1. There was some contest about whether his Honour perhaps gave undue weight to the plea of guilty. Whether his Honour gave weight or not a sufficient weight to the proffering of an apparently false alibi, it seems to me in finding as his Honour did, that there was a recognised need for close and strict supervision.  One can understand his Honour’s view to that; that close and strict supervision should commence forthwith.  After all, the offender had served over 10 months in custody already and that, it seems to me, did mark (though perhaps not to the extent I would have myself), the seriousness of this conduct and denounce it, along with the sentence of two and a half years that was the head sentence. 

1. In those circumstances, in my opinion, manifest inadequacy has not been made out and I dismiss the appeal.

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Chief Justice Higgins.

Associate:

Date:     12 May 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 34 - 2002   
  )          No. SCC 63 of 2002    
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN           

Appellant

AND:ROBERT CRAIG TAYLOR          

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P, Weinberg J        
Date:  12 May 2003
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CRISPIN P:

1. I agree with the remarks of the Chief Justice.  I too dismiss the appeal.  I would add only that in my opinion it was unfortunate that his Honour was obliged to deal with this case in the absence of any psychiatric opinion as to the psychological state of the appellant.  The incident was eloquent of an act of extraordinary and irrational emotion.  It was immediately followed by remorse and evident distress reflected in the respondent first lying on the ground and inviting the victim to put him out of his misery and later handing her a telephone and inviting her to call the police so that he might be charged.  Having regard to his record of similar outbursts of irrational emotion, his Honour was clearly obliged to take into account not only the need for deterrence and denunciation of the offence, but also the need for the underlying problem to be addressed by psychiatric treatment and rehabilitation.

1. The offence was obviously a serious one but it did not fall within the worst category of offence coming within the ambit of the sections under which the respondent was charged.  Having regard to the plea of guilty, the remorse displayed immediately after the offence and to the psychological state of the respondent at the time, the sentence was not, in my opinion, so lenient as to demonstrate any error of principle or to fall outside the range of discretion properly available to his Honour.

I certify that the preceding paragraphs numbered five (5) to six (6) are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Crispin.

Associate:

Date:     12 May 2003

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 34 - 2002   
  )          No. SCC 63 of 2002    
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:THE QUEEN           

Appellant

AND:ROBERT CRAIG TAYLOR          

Respondent

Judges:  Higgins CJ, Crispin P, Weinberg J        
Date:  12 May 2003
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WEINBERG J:

1. I agree with the observations of the Chief Justice and the President, and with the orders proposed.  I too, am of the view that the sentences imposed were somewhat lenient.  However, I cannot discern any error of principle on the part of the trial judge such as would warrant the intervention of this Court in order to establish, or maintain, adequate standards of punishment for this or other offences.  Accordingly, I would propose that the appeal be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph numbered seven (7) is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the his Honour, Justice Weinberg.

Associate:

Date:     12 May 2003

Counsel for the Appellant:   Mr R Refshauge SC    

Solicitor for the Appellant:   ACT Director of Public Prosecutions   

Counsel for the Respondent:   Mr C Everson 

Solicitor for the Respondent:   Legal Aid Office (ACT)           

Date of hearing:   12 May 2003  

Date of judgment:   12 May 2003