RG v R [2017] NSWCCA 60

RG v R [2017] NSWCCA 60

The conviction was not unreasonable because the applicant's recorded admissions, motive of revenge, knowledge that Ms Hamze was behind the door, the discharge of an entire magazine through the door, and the close groupings and trajectories of the shots provided clear evidence from which the jury could find beyond reasonable doubt an intention to kill and exclude recklessness as a reasonable possibility. The sentence appeal failed because institutionalisation had not been raised below and was not supported by expert evidence, the worst case characterisation was open given the deliberate multiple-shot attack into a suburban home causing life-threatening injuries and endangering a child, the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal and Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence granted; appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
['shoot With Intent to Murder' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'specific Intent to Kill' 'reckless Indifference' 'firearms Offences' 'objective Seriousness' 'worst Case Category' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'institutionalisation']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['shoot With Intent to Murder' 'unreasonable Verdict' 'specific Intent to Kill' 'reckless Indifference' 'firearms Offences' 'objective Seriousness' 'worst Case Category' 'totality Principle' 'manifest Excess' 'institutionalisation']

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 Conviction Appeal and Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdict on count 1, shoot with intent to murder, was unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence because intent to kill was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.' 'Whether the Crown excluded as a reasonable possibility that the shots were fired recklessly or with intent to injure rather than with intent to kill.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by not giving sufficient weight to the risk of institutionalisation when setting the non-parole period.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in characterising the objective seriousness of the offence as being in the worst case category.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the totality principle when partially accumulating the sentences.' 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction was not unreasonable because the applicant's recorded admissions, motive of revenge, knowledge that Ms Hamze was behind the door, the discharge of an entire magazine through the door, and the close groupings and trajectories of the shots provided clear evidence from which the jury could find beyond reasonable doubt an intention to kill and exclude recklessness as a reasonable possibility. The sentence appeal failed because institutionalisation had not been raised below and was not supported by expert evidence, the worst case characterisation was open given the deliberate multiple-shot attack into a suburban home causing life-threatening injuries and endangering a child, the...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence granted; appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']