R (Cth) v Madgwick [2018] NSWCCA 268

R (Cth) v Madgwick [2018] NSWCCA 268

The respondent failed in part to co-operate in accordance with his undertaking; the assistance given was effectively worthless; the Crown appeal is allowed, and the contingent sentence (removing the discount for future assistance) is imposed. The respondent’s cross-appeal is dismissed as no lesser sentence is warranted in law, even after considering the identified error (failure to allow for the utilitarian value of the plea).

Parties
Appellant Crown: Regina (Cth); Respondent: Kristian James Madgwick
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Sentence Appeal by DPP (cth) and Cross Appeal by Respondent
Outcome
Crown appeal allowed; respondent's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sentence Appeal, Co Operation With Law Enforcement, Utilitarian Value of Plea of Guilty, Importation of Border Controlled Precursor, Application of Crimes Act 1914 (cth) S 16 AC
Criminal Law Sentence Appeal Co Operation With Law Enforcement Utilitarian Value of Plea of Guilty Importation of Border Controlled Precursor Application of Crimes Act 1914 (cth) S 16 AC

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Cth)

Appellant Crown

Kristian James Madgwick

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal – Sentence Appeal by DPP (cth) and Cross Appeal by Respondent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent failed to co-operate in accordance with undertaking for future assistance under Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16AC
  2. 2 Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to have regard to utilitarian value of plea of guilty
  3. 3 Appropriate sentence to be imposed given partial/non-compliance with undertaking

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed in part to co-operate in accordance with his undertaking; the assistance given was effectively worthless; the Crown appeal is allowed, and the contingent sentence (removing the discount for future assistance) is imposed. The respondent’s cross-appeal is dismissed as no lesser sentence is warranted in law, even after considering the identified error (failure to allow for the utilitarian value of the plea).

Court Disposition

Crown appeal allowed; respondent's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The Crown appeal against the sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Frearson SC on 17 February 2017 is allowed.
  • The sentence imposed by his Honour on 17 February 2017 is quashed.