Legal Research
Cases
Tregeagle v The Queen

Tregeagle v The Queen

Case [2016] NSWCCA 106 8 June 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Tregeagle v R [2016] NSWCCA 106
Hearing dates: 23 May 2016
Date of orders: 08 June 2016
Decision date: 08 June 2016
Before: Payne JA at [1]; Price J at [107]; Garling J at [108]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted;
(2) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to find that the applicant had good prospects of rehabilitation as a mitigating factor – whether sentencing judge erred in taking into account the physical and psychological harm suffered by the victims as an aggravating factor
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 53A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 27, 95, 97
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5
Cases Cited: AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46; 198 CLR 111
Dinsdale v R [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Josefski v R [2010] NSWCCA 41
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Qing An v R [2007] NSWCCA 53
R v Gent [2005] NSWCCA 370
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v Solomon [2005] NSWCCA 158
R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Applicant: Lindsay Michael Tregeagle
Respondent: Regina
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: J Paingakulam (and W Hunt in writing)
Respondent: H Baker
Solicitors:
Applicant: Legal Aid NSW
Respondent: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2013/271083
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

24 July 2015

Before:

Berman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/271083

Judgment

PAYNE JA: On 13 August 2014, Mr Lindsay Tregeagle, the applicant, pleaded guilty in the Local Court to seven offences and was committed for sentence to the District Court. The charges comprised one charge of attempted armed robbery; three charges of armed robbery; two charges of aggravated armed robbery; and one charge of causing wounding with intent to murder.
On 24 July 2015 a sentencing hearing took place before Berman SC DCJ in the District Court at Newcastle and the applicant was sentenced that day to an aggregate sentence under s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (the Act) with a non-parole period of 16 years and 6 months, which will expire on 5 March 2030, and head sentence of 22 years imprisonment, to date from 6 September 2013, the day the applicant was taken into custody.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against the sentence imposed. There are four grounds of appeal:

the sentencing judge erred in failing to have regard to the applicant’s prior good behaviour as a mitigating factor pursuant to s 21A(3)(f) of the Act;

the sentencing judge erred in failing to find that…

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 Tregeagle v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Tregeagle v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 106
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 106
Decision Date: 08 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the matter of Tregeagle v The Queen was heard. The applicant, Tregeagle, appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. He contended that the sentencing judge had erred in not considering his good prospects of rehabilitation as a mitigating factor, and had erred in taking into account the physical and psychological harm suffered by the victims as an aggravating factor. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was appropriate in light of the mitigating and aggravating factors considered.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had erred in their consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors. The court noted that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion and had considered a wide range of factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the harm caused to the victims, and the character and prospects of the offender. The court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in their consideration of the mitigating and aggravating factors, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the various factors and had exercised their discretion in a manner consistent with the principles of sentencing.

The High Court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in their consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors and had appropriately balanced these factors in arriving at the sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence. The court affirmed the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

Orders