Wainwright v R - [2016] NSWCCA 19

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Wainwright v R [2016] NSWCCA 19
Hearing dates: 4 December 2015
Date of orders: 07 March 2016
Decision date: 07 March 2016
Before: Ward JA
R A Hulme J
Fagan J
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – mental health – whether sentencing judge erred in assessing impact of mental health of offender on sentence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AM v R [2012] NSWCCA 203
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; (2010) 243 FLR 28
Elturk v R [2014] NSWCCA 61
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Trent Wainwright (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr M Smith (Applicant)
Mr E Balodis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ms H Heathcoate (Applicant)
Mr C Hyland (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2010/015096
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2014] NSWDC 368

Date of Decision:

12 June 2014

Before:

Norrish QC DCJ

File Number(s):

2010/015096

Judgment

THE COURT: The Applicant was arraigned before his Honour Judge Norrish QC in the District Court at Sydney on 20 February 2013 on a charge that on 16 January 2010, at Mortdale, he did cause grievous bodily harm to Tamara Lee with intent to murder her (s 27 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)). The indictment contained an alternative count based upon the same events, under s 33(1)(b) Crimes Act, that the Applicant caused the grievous bodily harm to Tamara Lee with intent to do her grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not guilty to the first count and his plea of guilty to the second was accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment.
The maximum penalty under s 33(1)(b) is 25 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 7 years applies. Because of medical opinions regarding his unfitness to plead at various times and for other reasons which it is not necessary to recite or examine here, the Applicant’s pleas were not entered in the District Court until a little over 3 years after his arrest. Sentence was not passed until 12 June 2014, another 16 months later. On that date his Honour imposed a non-parole period of 5 years and a balance of term of 3 years and 1 month. Due to the Applicant having been intermittently in custody between his arrest on 16 January 2010 and the date sentence was imposed, for a total of 2 years 7 months and 12 days, his sentence was ordered to commence on 31 October 2011. The non-parole period will expire on 30 October 2016 and the balance of the term will expire on 29 November 2019.
The Applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the severity of his sentence on the following ground:

“His Honour the sentencing judge erred in his approach to the effect of the Applicant’s mental health…

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 Wainwright v R

Details

AGLC: Wainwright v R [2016] NSWCCA 19
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 19
Decision Date: 07 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wainwright v R, the respondent, a man suffering from a diagnosed mental illness, was convicted of a serious criminal offence and appealed against the sentence imposed. The appeal was brought before the court which needed to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in the assessment of the impact of the respondent's mental health on the sentence. The case hinged on whether the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the respondent's mental health condition and its effect on his culpability and the appropriate penalty.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the law in assessing the impact of the respondent's mental health on the sentence. The court had to examine the sentencing judge's consideration of the respondent's mental health, including the nature of the mental illness, its effect on the offence, and its relevance to the respondent's culpability and the appropriate penalty. The court also had to determine whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the principles of justice and whether it adequately reflected the respondent's mental health condition.

In its decision, the court found that the sentencing judge had not adequately considered the impact of the respondent's mental health on his culpability and the appropriate penalty. The court held that the sentencing judge had failed to sufficiently take into account the respondent's mental health condition and its effect on the offence. The court found that the sentence imposed was not commensurate with the principles of justice and did not adequately reflect the respondent's mental health condition. The court remitted the matter to the sentencing judge for reconsideration, with directions to appropriately consider the impact of the respondent's mental health on the sentence.

The court's final orders were to remit the matter to the sentencing judge for reconsideration, with directions to appropriately consider the impact of the respondent's mental health on the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of taking into account the mental health of offenders when determining their culpability and the appropriate penalty. The court also highlighted the need for sentencing judges to carefully consider the impact of mental health conditions on the offence and to impose sentences that are commensurate with the principles of justice.

Orders