Gwilliam v R [2019] NSWCCA 5

Gwilliam v R [2019] NSWCCA 5

The challenged findings were available inferences from the evidence and from findings the sentencing judge was entitled to make, including rejection of the applicant's account and acceptance of the victim's account. Because the factual matters were inherent in the disputed sentencing issues, the applicant was not denied procedural fairness by the judge not specifically foreshadowing each possible inference. The non-parole period was not shown to be erroneous merely because it exceeded the standard non-parole period by more than a small amount; the standard non-parole period was only a guidepost and the sentence properly reflected the objective seriousness of the sustained knife attack and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'disputed Facts on Sentence' 'procedural Fairness' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'inference and Speculation']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'disputed Facts on Sentence' 'procedural Fairness' 'standard Non Parole Period' 'inference and Speculation']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in making findings explaining the applicant's conduct which were not supported by the evidence." "Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness in relation to the sentencing judge's findings explaining his conduct." 'Whether, considered against the standard non-parole period, the sentencing judge erred in setting the non-parole period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged findings were available inferences from the evidence and from findings the sentencing judge was entitled to make, including rejection of the applicant's account and acceptance of the victim's account. Because the factual matters were inherent in the disputed sentencing issues, the applicant was not denied procedural fairness by the judge not specifically foreshadowing each possible inference. The non-parole period was not shown to be erroneous merely because it exceeded the standard non-parole period by more than a small amount; the standard non-parole period was only a guidepost and the sentence properly reflected the objective seriousness of the sustained knife attack and...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal.' 'Appeal dismissed.']