Wright v The Queen - [2008] NSWCCA 282

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Wright v R [2008] NSWCCA 282

HEARING DATE(S): 21/11/08

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 December 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Kirby J at 2; Hall J at 36

DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Practice & Procedure - maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm - use of glass/bottle as weapon - history of similar offences - finding of continuing disregard of the law - whether sentence manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465
R v Steeden (NSW CCA, unreported, 19/8/1994)
R v Woodhouse (NSW CCA, unreported 20/12/1996)
R v McAdam (NSW CCA, unreported, 29/9/1997)
R v Rowe (NSW CCA, unreported, 10/12/1997)
R v Mackey [2006] NSWCCA 254
Morris v R [2007] NSWCCA 127
R v Trevenna [2004] NSWCCA 43; (2004) 149 A Crim R 505

PARTIES: Damien John Wright (App)
Regina (Resp)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/15235

COUNSEL: C Smith (Appl)
N Noman (Resp/Crown)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor (LAC - Appl)
S Kavanagh (Resp/Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/11/0558

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Solomon DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 8/2/08

CCA 2007/15235

TOBIAS JA
KIRBY J
HALL J
Monday 15 December 2008

Damien John WRIGHT v REGINA

Judgment

1 TOBIAS JA: I agree with Kirby J.

2 KIRBY J: On 2 October 2007, Damien John Wright (the applicant) was arraigned before Solomon DCJ and a jury upon an indictment charging the following offences:

Count 1:

Crimes Act

Count 2: In the alternative -

3 On 18 October 2007, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty on Count 1, but guilty on Count 2.

4 On 8 February 2008, Solomon DCJ sentenced the applicant to a total term of 6 years imprisonment (9.11.2006 to 8.11.2012), made up of a non parole period of 4 years (9.11.2006 to 8.11.2010), with an additional term of 2 years (9.11.2010 to 8.11.2012). The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

Notice of appeal.

5 The notice of appeal relies upon a single ground expressed in these terms:

“1. The sentence is manifestly excessive.”

The incident.

6 Solomon DCJ, in his remarks on sentence, summarised the background to the incident in these words: (ROS 1/3)

“The offender met an acquaintance by the name of ‘Mark’ at about 7pm on 27 October 2006 at Central Railway Station. The offender and ‘Mark’, at about 8pm, attended a hotel in the Surry Hills area where they remained for about five and a half…

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 Wright v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wright v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 282
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 282
Decision Date: 15 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wright v The Queen, the respondent, Wright, was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm on another individual with a bottle. The matter was brought before the court to determine the appropriate sentence. Wright had a prior history of similar offences, which played a role in the sentencing decision. The primary legal issue for the court to resolve was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the respondent's persistent disregard for the law and the circumstances of the offence.

The court considered the nature and gravity of the offence, the respondent's history of similar criminal conduct, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. It was noted that Wright had shown a consistent pattern of violent behaviour, indicating a continuing disregard for the law. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and denunciation in sentencing individuals who commit such offences. The severity of the injury inflicted, coupled with the use of a bottle as a weapon, further underscored the need for an appropriate punishment. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence, and took into account the respondent's history of similar criminal conduct.

The court upheld the sentence imposed on Wright, finding that it was neither manifestly excessive nor disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence. The respondent's history of similar criminal conduct and the principle of proportionality in sentencing were carefully considered. The decision reflects the court's commitment to ensuring that sentences are appropriate and serve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation.

Orders