Legal Research
Cases
Vickers v The Queen

Vickers v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 297 13 November 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vickers v R [2020] NSWCCA 297
Hearing dates: 16 September 2020
Date of orders: 13 November 2020
Decision date: 13 November 2020
Before: Gleeson JA at [1];
Price J at [2];
Wright J at [3]
Decision:
(1) The applicant is granted leave to appeal.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – Offence of doing act with intent to pervert the course of justice – Whether sentencing judge erred in assessing offence as in the midrange of objective seriousness – No error established
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – Whether sentencing judge’s misstatement of maximum penalty for additional drive while disqualified offence impacted aggregate sentence – Misstatement had no material impact
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Not manifestly excessive in the circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW)
Road Transport Amendment (Driver Licence Disqualification) Act 2017 (NSW)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Andreata v R [2015] NSWCCA 239
Bidgood v R [2016] NSWCCA 138
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Finnie v Regina and Regina v Finnie [2007] NSWCCA 38
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218; 78 MVR 191
Lees v R [2019] NSWCCA 65
Moodie v R [2020] NSWCCA 160
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221
PO v R [2020] NSWCCA 129
R v Lachlan [2015] NSWCCA 178
Stephen Leslie Newton v R [2009] NSWCCA 128
Wong v the Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Zaky v R (Cth)[2017] NSWCCA 141

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Damian Vickers (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
W Tuckey (Applicant)
E Wilkins SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/199174;
2017/3181133;
2018/35474;
2018/37250
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2019] NSWDC 735

Date of Decision:

20 August 2019

Before:

Bright DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/199174;
2017/318133;
2018/35474;
2018/372520

Judgment

GLEESON JA: I agree with Wright J.
PRICE J: I agree with Wright J.
WRIGHT J: The applicant, Mr Damian Vickers, seeks leave to appeal under s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against an aggregate sentence imposed on him by Bright DCJ on 20 August 2019 in the District Court at Gosford.

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 Vickers v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Vickers v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 297
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 297
Decision Date: 13 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Vickers, appealed against his sentence for an offence of doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice, as well as additional charges of driving while disqualified. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. Vickers argued that the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the primary offence and that the misstated maximum penalty for the additional charge impacted the aggregate sentence. The respondent, the Crown, contended that no error was established and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the primary offence and whether the misstatement of the maximum penalty for the additional charge impacted the aggregate sentence. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The High Court found that no error was established in the sentencing judge's assessment of the objective seriousness of the primary offence. The court held that the misstatement of the maximum penalty for the additional charge did not materially impact the aggregate sentence. The court further found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders