Jones (a pseudonym) v The Queen - [2021] NSWCCA 106

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Jones (a pseudonym) v R [2021] NSWCCA 106
Hearing dates: 12 April 2021
Date of orders: 26 May 2021
Decision date: 26 May 2021
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Davies J at [2];
Button J at [78]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Allow the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed by Judge Colefax SC in the District Court on 7 February 2019.
(4) In lieu, sentence the appellant to an aggregate sentence of seven years commencing 1 November 2017 and expiring 31 October 2024 with a non-parole period of four years and five months expiring 31 March 2022.

Catchwords:
APPEAL – criminal appeal – sentencing – firearms offences – discount for assistance – whether sentencing judge misled as to significance of assistance and risks incurred – alleged incompetence of counsel

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 193C
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), s 13
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 23
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), ss 50A, 51, 74

Cases Cited:
HT v The Queen [2019] HCA 40; (2019) 374 ALR 216
Hutchinson v R [2014] NSWCCA 317
Nauer v R [2020] NSWCCA 174
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jones (a pseudonym) (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Fernandez (Applicant)
K Jeffreys (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Schneider Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2017/82171; 2017/330846
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2019] NSWDC 40

Date of Decision:

7 February 2019

Before:

Colefax SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/82171; 2017/330846

Judgment

BASTEN JA: I agree with Davies J.
DAVIES J: The applicant was charged with the following offences:

Supply prohibited firearms to a person not authorised to possess the prohibited firearms, contrary to s 51(1A)(a) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years’ imprisonment, and there is a standard non-parole period of ten years.
Possess a firearm part whilst subject to a Firearms Prohibition Order, contrary to s 74(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). The maximum penalty for this offence is 14 years’ imprisonment, and there is no standard non-parole period.
Manufacturing a prohibited firearm without a licence or permit to do so, contrary to s 50A(2) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW). The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years’ imprisonment, and there is no standard non-parole period.
1. The applicant pleaded guilty to these offences in the District Court on 25 September 2018, at about the time his trial was due to commence.
2. Sentence proceedings took place on 11 December 2018 and 7 February 2019 before Judge Colefax SC who sentenced the applicant on 7 February 2019: R v Jones (a pseudonym) [2019] NSWDC 40.
3. Two offences on a Form 1 document were taken into account in relation to count 3 as follows:
Intimidate a person…

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 Jones (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jones (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 106
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 106
Decision Date: 26 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Jones (a pseudonym) v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of multiple firearms offences. The case was brought before the court for the purpose of appealing the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge was misled regarding the significance of the assistance provided and the risks incurred during the commission of the offences. Additionally, the appellant claimed that their legal counsel was incompetent, which further prejudiced the sentencing process.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the sentencing judge was misled about the extent of the appellant's assistance and the risks involved, and whether the appellant's counsel was incompetent in a way that affected the fairness of the sentencing. The court examined the evidence presented at the original trial, the submissions made by both parties, and the sentencing remarks of the trial judge to determine the validity of the appellant's claims.

After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions, the court found that there was no basis to conclude that the sentencing judge was misled regarding the assistance provided or the risks incurred. The court also found that the appellant's counsel was not incompetent and had adequately represented the appellant's interests. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised that the sentencing process had been conducted fairly and that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences committed.

Orders