Legal Research
Cases
Vincent v The Queen

Vincent v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 271 21 October 2020

Sentencing

Manifest Excess

Accumulation of Sentences

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Vincent v R [2020] NSWCCA 271
Hearing dates: 19 August 2020
Decision date: 21 October 2020
Before: Gleeson JA at [1];
Rothman J at [2];
Price J at [92]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal granted;
(2)   The sentence imposed on the applicant by the District Court at Campbelltown on 6 May 2019, for the offences of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and specially aggravated detain for advantage, each committed on 22 June 2016, is quashed;
(3)   In lieu of the aforesaid sentence, the applicant is sentenced to an aggregate sentence for the offences of wound with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and specially aggravated detain for advantage, each committed on 22 June 2016, of 10 years’ imprisonment, commencing 30 May 2017 and concluding 29 May 2027, with a non-parole period of 6 years and 8 months, concluding 29 January 2024. The applicant is first eligible for release on parole on 29 January 2024.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence Appeal – manifest excess and failure to give effect to special circumstances – no manifest excess, by majority, minority did not need to consider – effect of accumulation on previously imposed sentences – assumed oversight – re-sentenced.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 33(1)(a), 86(3)

Cases Cited:
CM v R [2013] NSWCCA 341
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
GP v R [2017] NSWCCA 200
Hejazi v R (2009) 217 A Crim R 151; [2009] NSWCCA 282
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Maglis v R [2010] NSWCCA 247
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Sabongi v R (2015) 249 A Crim R 167; [2015] NSWCCA 25

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Thomas Vincent (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
R Rodger (Applicant)
B Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ryan & Payten (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/199510
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

6 May 2019

Before:

Noman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/199510

Judgment

GLEESON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Rothman J on the basis that the appeal should be allowed on ground 2 for the reasons given by his Honour and that it is necessary to re-sentence the applicant. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to decide ground 1 which asserts manifest excess.
ROTHMAN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by her Honour Judge Noman SC on 6 May 2019 in the District Court at Campbelltown. Her Honour imposed an aggregate sentence of…

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 Vincent v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Vincent v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 271
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 271
Decision Date: 21 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vincent v The Queen involved the appellant, Vincent, who had been convicted and sentenced for a series of criminal offences. The appeal focused on the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with the appellant arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the court had failed to give proper effect to certain special circumstances. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the court had failed to give proper effect to the special circumstances presented. The appellant also argued that the accumulation of the sentences imposed for multiple offences had not been properly considered, leading to an excessively harsh overall sentence. The Crown, on the other hand, maintained that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors.

The majority of the High Court found that there was no manifest excess in the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The majority held that the trial judge had considered the special circumstances and had not overlooked their impact on the sentencing. The majority also determined that any oversight in the consideration of the accumulation of sentences was assumed by the court, and thus did not warrant a new sentencing hearing. As a result, the majority did not find it necessary to consider the minority's view on the matter. The minority, however, would have allowed the appeal on the basis of the failure to adequately consider the special circumstances.

As a result of the majority decision, Vincent's appeal was dismissed. The sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld, and no new sentencing hearing was ordered. The court's decision emphasised the importance of properly considering special circumstances in sentencing, but found no grounds to interfere with the trial judge's decision in this case.

Orders