Legal Research
Cases
Firth v Regina

Firth v Regina

Case [2018] NSWCCA 144 17 September 2018

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: Firth v Regina [2018] NSWCCA 144
Hearing dates: 6 June 2018
Date of orders: 17 September 2018
Decision date: 17 September 2018
Before: Simpson AJA at [1]
Bellew J at [2]
Wilson J at [3]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal granted.
(2)   Appeal allowed.
(3)   Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court on 14 July 2017 with respect to counts 1, 3, and 11.
(4) In lieu, sentence the applicant to an aggregate term of imprisonment pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) of 5 years and 4 months, to date from 17 October 2016, expiring on 16 February 2022, with a non-parole period of 3 years, expiring on 16 October 2019.
(5)   The indicative sentences for counts 1, 3 and 11 are:
(a)   Count 1: 3 years 6 months imprisonment;
(b)   Count 3: taking into account the offences on the Form 1 document: 12 months imprisonment;
(c)   Count 11: taking into account the offence on the Form 1 document: 2 years imprisonment.
(6)   The sentences imposed in the Local Court the subject of the appeal against severity are to be remitted to the District Court of NSW, to be dealt with according to law.

Catchwords: CRIME – SENTENCE – appeal against sentence – offences of aggravated break enter steal and others – further offences taken into account – question of the relevance of mental illness to sentencing exercise – applicant from a deprived background – significance of childhood deprivation to sentence imposed – adequacy of reasons provided by sentencing judge – appeal from the Local Court included in aggregate sentence imposed for offences on indictment – aggregate sentence exceeded jurisdictional limit for Local Court – manifest excess
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Cases Cited: AMZ v R [2013] NSWCCA 6
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 205 A Crim R 1; (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; 86 ALJR 1086
Pettitt v Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
R v Keyte (2000) 78 SASR 68
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 183
Veen (No 2) [1998] HCA 14; (1998) 164 CLR 465
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Matthew Paul Firth - Applicant
Regina - Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A O’Neil for the Applicant
Mr E Balodis for the Respondent
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid NSW for the Applicant

File Number(s): 2015/346027 - Matthew Paul FIRTH v R; 2016/65699 - Matthew Paul FIRTH v R; 2016/29786 - Matthew Paul FIRTH v R; 2016/309841 - Matthew Paul FIRTH v R
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

14…

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 Firth v Regina

Details

AGLC: Firth v Regina [2018] NSWCCA 144
Case: [2018] NSWCCA 144
Decision Date: 17 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Firth v Regina is a case in which the respondent, Regina, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Local Court on the applicant, Firth, who was found guilty of multiple offences including aggravated break enter steal and other related offences. The appeal centred on the sentence, arguing that the court had not adequately considered Firth's mental health and background when imposing the sentence. The appeal also included an argument that the aggregate sentence imposed by the Local Court exceeded the jurisdictional limit.

The primary legal issues in the appeal were whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered Firth's mental illness and background of childhood deprivation when determining the sentence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal also considered whether the aggregate sentence imposed by the Local Court exceeded the jurisdictional limit for that court.

The court found that while Firth's mental illness and background of deprivation were relevant factors to consider in the sentencing process, they did not excuse the gravity of the offences committed. The court held that the sentencing judge had adequately considered these factors and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court also found that the aggregate sentence imposed by the Local Court did exceed the jurisdictional limit, but this did not affect the validity of the sentence itself. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.

The court did not alter the sentence imposed by the Local Court but did direct that the aggregate sentence take into account the time spent on remand and the time spent on the appeal. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of the offender when imposing a sentence, including factors such as mental illness and background, but also emphasised that the gravity of the offences must be taken into account.

Orders