Macfarlan JA at [1] Johnson J at [2] R A Hulme J at [116]
Decision:
Refuse extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence.
Catchwords:
APPEAL – SENTENCE – application for extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence – offences of cause grievous bodily harm with intent to murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – offender attacked his wife with a knife and his vehicle and her co-worker with a knife – sentencing Judge imposed aggregate sentences and indicated sentences which would have been imposed for individual offences – whether sentencing Judge erred in the notional accumulation of the indicative sentences – no claim that indicative sentences or aggregate sentence were manifestly excessive – consideration of provisions for aggregate sentencing – claim of error based on misconception concerning aggregate sentencing – ground of appeal rejected – extension of time refused
Shelden Patrick Vaughan (Applicant) Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel: Mr P Lange; Mr B Mawassi (Applicant) Mr B Hatfield (Respondent)
Solicitors: Alexanders Lawyers Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):
2015/241894
Publication restriction:
---
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
---
Citation:
---
Date of Decision:
27 April 2018
Before:
His Honour Judge Bennett SC
File Number(s):
2015/241894
Judgment
MACFARLAN JA: I agree with Johnson J.
JOHNSON J: The Applicant, Shelden Patrick Vaughan, seeks leave to appeal against an aggregate sentence of imprisonment imposed by his Honour Judge Bennett SC at the Parramatta District Court on 27 April 2018 for offences of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to murder contrary to s.27 Crimes Act 1900 and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm contrary to s.33(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900.
The maximum penalty and standard non-parole period for each of these offences is as follows:
an offence under s.27 Crimes Act 1900 - maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years with a standard non-parole…
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 Vaughan v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Vaughan v R [2020] NSWCCA 3
Case
[2020] NSWCCA 3
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Vaughan v R, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against his sentence, imposed for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to murder and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge erred in the notional accumulation of the indicative sentences. However, there was no claim that either the indicative sentences or the aggregate sentence were manifestly excessive.
The legal issues in the case involved the interpretation and application of the provisions for aggregate sentencing. The applicant's ground of appeal was based on a misconception concerning aggregate sentencing. The court considered whether the sentencing judge had erred in calculating the aggregate sentence by notional accumulation of the indicative sentences.
The court found that the applicant's claim of error was based on a misconception concerning aggregate sentencing. The court held that the sentencing judge did not err in the notional accumulation of the indicative sentences, as the aggregate sentence was correctly calculated. The ground of appeal was rejected, and the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence was refused.