R v Davis, Smith and Charnock [2016] NSWDC 427

R v Davis, Smith and Charnock [2016] NSWDC 427

Sentences were fixed for each offender (Davis and Smith), reflecting the nature and gravity of their respective offences, individual culpability, lack of premeditation, absence of prior convictions, character evidence, prospects for rehabilitation, impact of injuries on victims, and granting of discounts for guilty pleas and special circumstances. Full-time imprisonment was imposed due to seriousness and public interest in deterrence. Accumulation and totality were carefully considered in Davis’ case.

Parties
Prosecution: Crown; Offender: Matthew Darrol Davis; Offender: Rebecca Joy Smith; Offender: Daniel Keith Charnock
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing Judgment
Outcome
Convicted. Sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Sentencing of Charnock adjourned.
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Recklessly Wound, Recklessly Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm, Objective Seriousness, Discount for Plea, Parity, Victim Impact Statements
Criminal Law Sentencing Recklessly Wound Recklessly Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm Objective Seriousness Discount for Plea Parity Victim Impact Statements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Prosecution

Matthew Darrol Davis

Offender

Rebecca Joy Smith

Offender

Daniel Keith Charnock

Offender

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How to appropriately sentence each offender for charges of reckless wounding, recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm in company, and intentionally causing grievous bodily harm given the objective and subjective circumstances and relevant legislation
  2. 2 The impact and quantification of relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, including pleas and prospects for rehabilitation
  3. 3 Application of totality, parity, and discount for pleas

Ratio Decidendi

Sentences were fixed for each offender (Davis and Smith), reflecting the nature and gravity of their respective offences, individual culpability, lack of premeditation, absence of prior convictions, character evidence, prospects for rehabilitation, impact of injuries on victims, and granting of discounts for guilty pleas and special circumstances. Full-time imprisonment was imposed due to seriousness and public interest in deterrence. Accumulation and totality were carefully considered in Davis’ case.

Court Disposition

Convicted. Sentenced to terms of imprisonment. Sentencing of Charnock adjourned.

Orders

  • Matthew Darrol Davis: Convicted of Count 1 (recklessly wound) – sentence: 2 years 6 months imprisonment (non-parole period 1 year); Count 2 (recklessly inflict grievous bodily harm in company) – sentence: 3 years 2 months imprisonment (non-parole period 1 year). Accumulated as partially concurrent. Special...
  • Rebecca Joy Smith: Convicted of intentionally cause grievous bodily harm – sentence: 4 years 3 months imprisonment (non-parole period 2 years 1 month). Special circumstances found.