Legal Research
Cases
Du Randt v R

Du Randt v R

Case [2008] NSWCCA 121 30 May 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Du Randt v R [2008] NSWCCA 121
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 23 April 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 May 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1; Barr J at 5; Buddin J at 59

DECISION: The applicant is granted leave to appeal. The sentence appealed from is quashed and there is substituted a sentence of imprisonment of two years and six months. The sentence is to be taken to have commenced on 28 September 2007 and will expire on 27 March 2010. Direct that the applicant be released on 27 March 2009 on a Recognisance Release Order self in the sum of $100.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence - dealing in money that was proceeds of crime - whether trial judge gave adequate consideration to mental health of applicant at the time of the offence

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth) s400.4(2)
Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) ss16A, 17A, 20BV
Mental Health Act 2007
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s6(3)

CASES CITED: Leach v R [2008] NSWCCA 73
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255

PARTIES: Amelia Du Randt
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/4550

COUNSEL: Greg Walsh (solicitor) (Appellant)
Mr Staehli SC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Greg Walsh Barristers and Solicitors (Appellant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0314

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sorby DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 28 September 2007

2007 / 4550
BASTEN JA
BARR J
BUDDIN J

30 May 2008

Amelia Du Randt v R

JUDGMENT

1 BASTEN JA: This matter involves an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant by Sorby DCJ, the circumstances of which are sufficiently recounted by Barr J, with whose reasons I agree. There were, in substance, two complaints concerning the attention paid by the sentencing judge to evidence of the applicant’s psychological ill-health. That material was relevant in two ways. First, it had the potential to affect an assessment of the applicant’s moral culpability with respect to her involvement in the offences to which she pleaded guilty. Secondly, it provided a basis for an inference that, if she received a custodial sentence, the sentence would weigh more heavily on the applicant than would be expected in the case of a reasonably healthy person.

2 At the hearing of the application, further evidence was tendered, by way of a report prepared by a psychiatrist, Dr John Roberts, as to the state of her health in prison. The Director objected to the tender, partly on the basis that he had not had an opportunity to obtain a further report from his own psychiatrist, Dr Allnutt. On the basis that the Director would be given an opportunity to obtain another report, the further psychiatric evidence was admitted. A supplementary report from Dr Allnutt was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Du Randt v R

Details

AGLC: Du Randt v R [2008] NSWCCA 121
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 121
Decision Date: 30 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Du Randt, appealed against the severity of his sentence, which was imposed for dealing in money that was proceeds of crime. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary issue for the court was whether the trial judge adequately considered the applicant's mental health at the time of the offence. The applicant argued that his mental health issues should have been a significant mitigating factor in determining his sentence. The prosecution maintained that the trial judge had appropriately weighed all relevant factors, including the applicant's mental health.

The court examined the trial judge's sentencing remarks and the evidence presented regarding the applicant's mental health. It was noted that the trial judge had made some reference to the applicant's mental health but did not delve deeply into how these issues might have impacted his criminal behaviour. The court found that the trial judge's consideration of the applicant's mental health was insufficient, and this failure may have affected the overall fairness of the sentencing process. Consequently, the court determined that the trial judge's inadequate consideration of the applicant's mental health warranted a reduction in the severity of the sentence.

The High Court allowed the appeal, reducing the applicant's sentence. The court directed that the case be remitted to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence, with proper regard to the applicant's mental health at the time of the offence. The decision underscored the importance of thorough consideration of all mitigating factors in sentencing, particularly those related to the defendant's mental health.

Orders