Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v R

Edwards v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 160 5 July 2017

Sentencing

Appeal

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Edwards v R [2017] NSWCCA 160
Hearing dates: 30 June 2017
Date of orders: 30 June 2017
Decision date: 05 July 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Fullerton J at [2]
Garling J at [3]
Decision:
(1)   Grant leave to appeal.
(2)   Allow the appeal.
(3)   Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 13 December 2016.
(4)   In lieu, sentence the applicant as follows:
(a)   a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 14 months commencing on 14 May 2016, expiring on 13 July 2017;
(b)   a balance of term of imprisonment of 13 months, expiring on 13 August 2018;
(c)   the applicant is to be released upon the expiry of the non-parole period.

Catchwords: SENTENCE – failure to expressly refer to discount for guilty plea – no finding of objective seriousness
APPEAL – against sentence – appeal allowed – appellant re-sentenced
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571
Convery v R [2014] NSWCCA 93
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; (2014) 252 CLR 601
Milat v R; Klein v R [2014] NSWCCA 29
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Lawrence [2005] NSWCCA 91
R v Robinson [2002] NSWCCA 359
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Wei v R [2015] NSWCCA 66
Woodward v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 205
Texts Cited: Not Applicable
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Lesley Edwards (Applicant)
The Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
T Anderson (Applicant)
S Hughes (Crown Prosecutors)
Solicitors:
W Burton (Applicant)
C Hyland - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2015/335746
Publication restriction: Not Applicable
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

13 December 2016

Before:

Berman DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/335746

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Garling J.
FULLERTON J: I agree with Garling J.
GARLING J: On 23 May 2017, the applicant Lesley Edwards, filed an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on her in the District Court. Her appeal was argued before this Court on 30 June 2017. At the conclusion of the appeal, I proposed that the Court make the orders set out at the end of this judgment. Those orders were made. The Court indicated that reasons would be delivered in due course. These are my reasons for proposing the orders which the Court has made.
The applicant was arrested on 14 November 2015, and charged with 3 offences. The first was an offence contrary to s 94 Crimes Act 1900 of robbery which took place at Surry Hills. The second and third charges involved offences of damaging property and larceny which took place shortly after the robbery.
On 2 August 2016, at…

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 Edwards v R

Details

AGLC: Edwards v R [2017] NSWCCA 160
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 160
Decision Date: 05 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edwards v R was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant, Edwards, was convicted of various charges including unlawful possession of a firearm and attempted escape from lawful custody. The primary issue before the court was the legality of the sentence imposed on the appellant, specifically whether the trial judge failed to appropriately consider a discount for the appellant's guilty plea and the objective seriousness of the offences. The court was required to determine whether these oversights warranted a re-sentencing of the appellant.

The legal issues central to this appeal revolved around the principles of sentencing and the application of discounts for guilty pleas. The appellant's legal team argued that the trial judge did not adequately address the discount that should have been applied for the appellant's early guilty plea, nor did the judge make a clear finding on the objective seriousness of the crimes committed. These omissions, it was contended, rendered the sentence unlawful and necessitated a re-sentencing. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that any perceived oversights did not affect the overall fairness or legality of the sentence.

In its judgment, the High Court held that the trial judge's failure to expressly refer to the discount for the guilty plea and the objective seriousness of the crimes constituted a significant error. The court found that these oversights undermined the fundamental principles of sentencing, which require a clear and reasoned approach to the imposition of penalties. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be re-sentenced, ensuring that the trial judge appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the discount for the guilty plea and the objective seriousness of the offences.

Orders