Legal Research
Cases
Watts v The Queen

Watts v The Queen

Case [2010] NSWCCA 315 16 December 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Watts v R [2010] NSWCCA 315

HEARING DATE(S): 3 November 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Schmidt J at 36; Howie AJ at 1

DECISION: (a) application for leave to appeal is granted and the appeal allowed;
(b) the sentence imposed in the District Court is quashed and in lieu the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 4 years 1 month and a balance of term of 1 year 5 months. The sentence is to date from 21 August 2008.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - whether the sentencing judge erred in assessment of the seriousness of the offence - whether the effect of the offender's mental condition was properly taken into account - whether sentence was manifestly excessive - failure by sentencing judge to take into account in an appropriate manner the psychiatric evidence of the offender - offender re-sentenced

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act (NSW) 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Mental Health Act

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Georgopolous v R [2010] NSWCCA 246
Markarian v R [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Okeke v R [2010] NSWCCA 266
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
Sivell v R [2009] NSWCCA 286

PARTIES: David Michael Watts (applicant)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2008/11324

COUNSEL: J Manuell SC (applicant)
J Pickering (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/11324

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Syme DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 11 September 2009

2008/11324

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SCHMIDT J
HOWIE AJ
THURSDAY 16 DECEMBER 2010

WATTS, David Michael v R

Judgment

: The applicant was tried and convicted of an offence contrary to s 195(1)(b) of the Crimes Act (NSW) 1900. The indictment was in the following terms:

“On 16 November 2007 at Bidwill in the State of New South Wales did maliciously damage by means of fire certain property, namely a dwelling house situate at 8 Capparis Circuit, the property of the New South Wales Department of Housing.”

2 The offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 4 years and 10 months to commence on 21 August 2008 and expire on 20 June 2013 with a balance of term of 1 year and 8 months to commence on 21 June 2013 and expire on 20 February 2015.

3 The applicant seeks to raise three grounds of appeal being:

Ground 1: Her Honour erred in assessment of the seriousness of the offence.

Ground 2: Her Honour failed to properly consider the effect of the applicant’s mental condition.

Ground 3: The sentence was manifestly excessive

The relevant facts

4 The applicant and his de-facto were tenants of the premises. They had both lived at…

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 Watts v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Watts v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 315
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 315
Decision Date: 16 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Watts v The Queen was a criminal case heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Watts, had been convicted of a serious offence and was sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment. The central issue in the appeal was whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the seriousness of the offence and whether the effect of the appellant's mental condition was properly taken into account. Additionally, it was argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the sentencing judge had failed to appropriately consider the psychiatric evidence presented on behalf of the appellant.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in the assessment of the seriousness of the offence and in the way they had considered the appellant's mental condition. Furthermore, the court had to examine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the psychiatric evidence had been appropriately taken into account. The court also considered the general principles of sentencing and the role of mental condition in the sentencing process.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in the assessment of the seriousness of the offence and in the way they had considered the appellant's mental condition. The court held that the failure to appropriately consider the psychiatric evidence constituted a significant error. The sentence was found to be manifestly excessive, and the court decided that the appellant should be re-sentenced. The High Court set aside the original sentence and remitted the matter to the lower court for re-sentencing, taking into account the correct assessment of the seriousness of the offence and the proper consideration of the appellant's mental condition.

Orders