Legal Research
Cases
Watson v R

Watson v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 215 25 August 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: Watson v R [2020] NSWCCA 215
Hearing dates: 24 August 2020
Date of orders: 24 August 2020
Decision date: 25 August 2020
Before: Johnson J at [1];
Davies J at [2];
Adamson J at [3]
Decision:
(1)   Extend the time for filing of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal to 5 August 2020.
(2)   Allow the appeal against the convictions for Counts 1 and 2.
(3)   Quash the convictions for Counts 1 and 2 and set aside the aggregate sentence imposed for those offences.
(4)   Grant leave to appeal against the aggregate sentence for Counts 3 and 4.
(5)   Allow the appeal against sentence for Counts 3 and 4.
(6)   Quash the aggregate sentence for Counts 3 and 4.
(7) Pursuant to s 12(2) Criminal Appeal Act 1912, remit Counts 3 and 4 to the District Court of New South Wales for sentence. The Court notes that the matter has been listed before his Honour Judge Mahony SC at 10.00 am on 27 August 2020 for a sentence hearing with respect to Counts 3 and 4.
(8) The Court dispenses with bail with respect to Count 3 and 4 pursuant to s 10 Bail Act 2013. In determining to dispense with bail with respect to Counts 3 and 4, the Court notes that Counts 3 and 4 will be next before the District Court on 27 August 2020 and that there is a protective regime in place under s 7 Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2014 which is on foot until those matters are next before the Parramatta Local Court on 28 August 2020.
(9)   The Court will give written reasons as soon as practicable.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against convictions for non-compliance with Child Protection Prohibition Order and reporting requirements — Child Protection Prohibition Order annulled — Not contested by Crown
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against sentence — Where two aggregate sentences imposed for State and Commonwealth offences — Where aggregate sentence imposed for Commonwealth offences must be set aside — Remittal to sentencing judge

Legislation Cited:
Bail Act 2013 (NSW), s 10
Child Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004 (NSW), ss 7, 13
Child Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000 (NSW), ss 3A, 17, 20A
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20AB
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW), s 10
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999 (NSW), s 53A
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), ss 5, 6, 7, 12
Criminal Code (Cth), s 474.19
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 68
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT), s 52

Cases Cited:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie [2017] NSWCCA 301; (2017) 270 A Crim R 556
Kannis v R [2020] NSWCCA 79
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159

Category: Principal judgment

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 Watson v R

Details

AGLC: Watson v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 215
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 215
Decision Date: 25 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against conviction and sentence was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant was convicted of two offences under the Crimes (Child Protection) Act 1997 (Cth), namely, non-compliance with a Child Protection Prohibition Order and failure to comply with a requirement to report under the same Act. The Crown did not contest the annulment of the Child Protection Prohibition Order. The appellant was also convicted of a number of state offences, for which he was sentenced along with the Commonwealth offences. The appellant appealed against both his convictions and sentences.

The court was required to determine whether the convictions and sentences were lawfully obtained. The court had to consider whether the Child Protection Prohibition Order was valid, and whether the appellant had failed to comply with it. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account the aggregate sentences for the state and Commonwealth offences.

The court found that the Child Protection Prohibition Order was invalid, and therefore the appellant's convictions for non-compliance with it and failure to report were quashed. The court held that the sentence for the state offences should be set aside, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant for the state offences alone. The court held that the sentence for the Commonwealth offences should be set aside, as it was imposed in the context of an invalid order, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant for the Commonwealth offences alone. The court held that the sentences for the state and Commonwealth offences should be served concurrently, and the appellant was to be re-sentenced for the state offences alone.

The court quashed the appellant's convictions for non-compliance with the Child Protection Prohibition Order and failure to report, and set aside the sentence for the state offences. The matter was remitted to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant for the state offences alone. The court held that the sentence for the Commonwealth offences should be set aside, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge to re-sentence the appellant for the Commonwealth offences alone. The court held that the sentences for the state and Commonwealth offences should be served concurrently.

Orders