Wagner v The Queen - [2018] NSWCCA 124

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Wagner v R [2018] NSWCCA 124
Hearing dates: 18 May 2018
Date of orders: 22 June 2018
Decision date: 22 June 2018
Before: Leeming JA, Button and Fagan JJ
Decision:
Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
The sentences passed on the applicant on 9 June 2017 in the District Court at Campbelltown are quashed and in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced as is provided in orders 3, 4, 5 and 6.
For count (or sequence) 1 the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months to commence 17 January 2017 and to expire on 16 April 2018.
For count (or sequence) 2 the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year and 11 months to commence 17 June 2017 and to expire on 16 May 2019.
Pursuant to s 19AC and s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) it is ordered that that the applicant be released at the expiry of 16 November 2018 upon his own recognizance, for a period of 6 months,
(i) to be of good behaviour;
(ii) to be subject to the supervision of officers of Community Corrections and to obey all reasonable directions of that service;
(iii) to obey any requirement of Community Corrections that he permit inspection of any mobile phone owned or possessed by him and to provide access to any data on such mobile phone;
(iv) to accept any direction of Community Corrections that he attend any sex offender treatment program and/or that he be evaluated for or accept treatment for any mental health disorder including depression;
(v) to forfeit surety in the sum of $500 in the event of breach of any of these conditions.
For count (or sequence) 3 the appellant is sentenced to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 1 year commencing on 17 November 2017 and expiring on 16 November 2018, with a balance of term of 6 months commencing on 17 November 2018 and to expire on 16 May 2019. The applicant will be eligible for release on parole at the expiry of 16 November 2018.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentencing – guilty plea – whether error in not discounting sentence for Commonwealth offence on account of utilitarian value of guilty pleas.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 91H(2)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 19AC
Criminal Code (Cth) s 474.19(1)
Cases Cited: Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; [2002] HCA 6
Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Adam Scott Wagner (applicant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Paingakulam (applicant)
R Ranken (respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/378627
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Not published

Date of Decision:

9 June 2017

Before:

Herbert DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/378627

Judgment

THE COURT: The applicant seeks leave to…

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 Wagner v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wagner v The Queen [2018] NSWCCA 124
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 124
Decision Date: 22 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wagner v The Queen, the appellant, Wagner, appealed against his sentence on the basis that the trial judge erred in not discounting the sentence for the Commonwealth offence due to the utilitarian value of his guilty plea. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have applied a discount to the sentence on account of the appellant's guilty plea and, if so, what the appropriate discount should be.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases concerning sentencing discounts for guilty pleas. It examined whether the trial judge had erred in not applying such a discount and, if so, the extent of the discount that should have been applied. The court held that while the appellant's guilty plea did have utilitarian value, the trial judge was not obligated to apply a discount to the sentence as a matter of law. Instead, the court held that the trial judge had the discretion to consider the utilitarian value of the guilty plea when determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the appellant's guilty plea and had not erred in the sentence imposed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court did not order any changes to the sentence or direct the trial judge to reconsider the sentence in light of the appellant's guilty plea. Instead, the court emphasised the trial judge's discretion in considering the utilitarian value of a guilty plea when determining the appropriate sentence for an offender.

Orders