McCartney, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns a renewed application for leave to appeal a sentence imposed for attempted murder. The original sentence was 16 years and eight months’ imprisonment, with an extended licence period of four years, accompanied by a lifelong restraining order to protect the victim from harassment. The applicant was found to be dangerous. The single judge refused leave to appeal in July 2024, and the renewed application concerns the length of the custodial term.

The charges arose from an incident on 7 November 2020, involving attempted murder and threats to kill. The applicant and victim were separated spouses with a history of domestic violence and substance abuse on the part of the applicant. On the date of the offence, the applicant stabbed the victim 19 times in her home while the victim was on a phone call with her sister. The couple’s four children were present, with one child witnessing and intervening. The victim required emergency surgery and hospitalisation for over a month. The applicant was on bail for a prior assault on the victim at the time of the stabbing.

The applicant initially pleaded not guilty to all charges and offered a guilty plea to grievous bodily harm with intent, which was rejected. The trial experienced multiple adjournments due to changes in legal representation and the need for expert reports. The applicant’s mental health, specifically PTSD, was raised as a mitigating factor during sentencing.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in selecting the starting point for the custodial sentence.
2. Whether insufficient credit was given for the applicant’s mental health condition (PTSD) affecting culpability.
3. Whether the reduction for the applicant’s guilty plea was insufficient.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The starting point of 22 years before reductions was too high given the circumstances.
• The applicant’s PTSD, supported by expert medical evidence, warranted greater mitigation and reduced culpability.
• The plea reduction of one-sixth was inadequate given the timing and nature of the plea.

Appellee's Arguments

• The sentencing starting point and reductions were appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offence and the applicant’s culpability.
• The judge properly considered and applied the medical evidence on PTSD, rejecting psychosis as unsupported.
• The plea reduction was within the proper discretionary range given the late plea and trial preparation of witnesses.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully reviewed the sentencing judge’s remarks and the comprehensive pre-sentence reports, including the medical evidence relating to the applicant’s PTSD. The judge accepted PTSD as a mitigating factor affecting the applicant’s judgment but rejected the suggestion of psychosis due to lack of evidence. The judge’s starting point of 22 years reflected the gravity of the offence, which was at the top of the scale for attempted murder, considering multiple aggravating factors such as premeditation, use of a weapon, presence of children, and domestic context.

The judge granted a two-year reduction for the impact of PTSD on culpability and a further reduction of one-sixth for the late guilty plea. The court found the judge’s approach to the medical evidence to be generous and appropriate, noting that personal mitigation in such a serious case is necessarily limited. The court emphasized the importance of differentiating between the severity of the offence and the limited extent to which mental health issues can mitigate culpability in this context.

Applying the relevant sentencing guidelines, the court confirmed that the judge’s assessment of the starting point and reductions fell within the acceptable discretionary range. The court found no basis to interfere with the judge’s evaluation of the plea reduction, given the timing and circumstances of the plea.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE TO APPEAL and DISMISSED THE APPEAL.

The decision upholds the original sentence of 16 years and eight months’ custody with an extended licence period and a lifelong restraining order. The ruling confirms the appropriateness of the sentencing judge’s assessment of the aggravating factors, the application of mental health mitigation, and the plea reduction. No new precedent was established; the decision primarily affirms established sentencing principles in the context of attempted murder with significant aggravating circumstances and limited mitigation.