Regina v AB Regina v CLIFFORD [2005] NSWCCA 360

Regina v AB Regina v CLIFFORD [2005] NSWCCA 360

The trial judge erred in placing the offence of murder towards the lower end of objective seriousness and in ordering wholly concurrent sentences for murder and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. The criminality in firing two shots, with one fatally wounding a person and the other seriously injuring another, required identifiable punishment for each offence. For Clifford, the judge erred in finding he did not advert to the possibility the shotgun would be discharged when the jury had found otherwise. The Crown appeals were allowed, sentences quashed, and new sentences imposed reflecting both the seriousness of the offences and separate punishments for each act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Crown Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeals allowed; sentences imposed on AB and Clifford quashed; new sentences imposed.
Legal Topics
['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'murder' 'manslaughter' 'maliciously Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'assessment of Objective Seriousness' 'weight Given to Subjective Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences']
['criminal Law'] ['crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'murder' 'manslaughter' 'maliciously Inflict Grievous Bodily Harm' 'assessment of Objective Seriousness' 'weight Given to Subjective Circumstances' 'accumulation of Sentences']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Crown Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed on AB and Clifford were manifestly inadequate' 'Whether the trial judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences' 'Whether too much weight was given to subjective circumstances' 'Whether sentences for multiple offences should have been accumulated instead of concurrent' "Whether findings regarding Clifford's advertence to discharge of shotgun were inconsistent with jury verdict"]

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred in placing the offence of murder towards the lower end of objective seriousness and in ordering wholly concurrent sentences for murder and maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. The criminality in firing two shots, with one fatally wounding a person and the other seriously injuring another, required identifiable punishment for each offence. For Clifford, the judge erred in finding he did not advert to the possibility the shotgun would be discharged when the jury had found otherwise. The Crown appeals were allowed, sentences quashed, and new sentences imposed reflecting both the seriousness of the offences and separate punishments for each act.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; sentences imposed on AB and Clifford quashed; new sentences imposed.

Orders

  • ['In relation to AB: 1. Appeal allowed and the sentences imposed be quashed. 2. On count 1: imprisonment for 14 years commencing 26 July 2004 with a non-parole period of 9 years and 6 months expiring 25 January 2014; balance of 4 years and 6 months expiring 25 July 2018. 3. On count 2: imprisonment 5 years 6 months...