Park v R [2010] NSWCCA 151

Park v R [2010] NSWCCA 151

The indictment as pleaded was sufficient to allege attempted murder under s 30 of the Crimes Act 1900. The trial was conducted on this basis, and proximity was not an issue. The sentencing judge properly assessed the appellant’s mental condition and mitigating circumstances, found the appellant to be aware of his actions, and was justified in imposing a sentence above the standard non-parole period given the planning, intention to kill, and lack of genuine remorse.

Parties
Appellant: Sang Jin Park; Respondent: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Sentencing, Mental Condition, Mitigating Factors, Proximity in Criminal Attempt
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Sentencing Mental Condition Mitigating Factors Proximity in Criminal Attempt

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 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sang Jin Park

Appellant

The Crown

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment failed to disclose an offence known to law
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly take into account the appellant's mental condition at the time of the offence
  3. 3 Whether the sentencing judge failed to have proper regard to matters in mitigation of the sentence to be imposed

Ratio Decidendi

The indictment as pleaded was sufficient to allege attempted murder under s 30 of the Crimes Act 1900. The trial was conducted on this basis, and proximity was not an issue. The sentencing judge properly assessed the appellant’s mental condition and mitigating circumstances, found the appellant to be aware of his actions, and was justified in imposing a sentence above the standard non-parole period given the planning, intention to kill, and lack of genuine remorse.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted but appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed.
  • Grant leave to appeal against sentence but dismiss that appeal.