Jones v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 385

CITATION: Jones v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 385

HEARING DATE(S): 14/11/2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 December 2006

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Hidden J at 2; Hislop J at 27

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: - application for leave to appeal against sentence - Commonwealth charges of escaping from lawful custody, causing harm to a public official - proportion of recognizance release order to head sentence - whether sentences manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914
Criminal Code 1995

CASES CITED: R v Robinson [2000] NSWCCA 182
R v Crombie [1999] NSWCCA 297
Merzahi v Wilkinson [2002] WASCA 124
R v Paterson [2004] WASCA 63
R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44

PARTIES: Diane Margaret Jones (applicant)
Regina (respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/1841

COUNSEL: S McNaughton (applicant)
P Roberts SC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission (applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: English DCJ

2006/1841

McClellan CJ at CL
Hidden J
Hislop J
Monday 4 December 2006

Diane Margaret JONES v REGINA

Judgment

1 MCCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hidden J.

2 HIDDEN J: The applicant, Diane Margaret Jones, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon her in the District Court for the following offences:

Crimes Act

Criminal Code

3 Before setting out the sentences which were imposed, it is convenient to summarise the facts briefly. On 20 September 2002 the applicant appeared at Penrith District Court before Viney DCJ for sentence on a charge of defrauding the Commonwealth. She is a diabetic. After his Honour had indicated that he intended to impose a full-time custodial sentence, she stood up from where she was seated, grabbed her side and said, “I need my insulin”. She then left the courtroom. She did not return and was unable to be found in the court complex or at a nearby medical centre. This conduct gave rise to the charge of escaping from lawful custody.

4 On the same day warrants for her arrest were issued in respect of the offence of defrauding the Commonwealth and the charge of escape. They were not executed until 15 November 2002, when three federal agents arrested her at her home in South Penrith. It is not necessary to recite in detail the process of that arrest. It is sufficient to say that she sought to evade capture and that, at one stage, she swung a piece of timber at the head of one of the agents. He placed his hands above…

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 v Regina

Details

AGLC: Jones v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 385
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 385
Decision Date: 4 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jones v Regina concerns the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed following his conviction on Commonwealth charges of escaping from lawful custody and causing harm to a public official. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, having escaped from lawful custody, inflicted harm on a public official during the escape. The Crown sought a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences, while the appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in relation to the proportion of the recognizance release order to the head sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed by the lower courts were manifestly excessive, and if the proportion of the recognizance release order to the head sentence was disproportionate. The court considered whether the sentencing principles and the totality of the circumstances warranted a departure from the lower courts' decisions. The appellant contended that the sentence was disproportionately severe given the context of the escape and the harm caused, while the Crown maintained that the sentences were appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the crimes.

The court examined the principles of sentencing and the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence. The court found that while the offences were serious, the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. The court also held that the proportion of the recognizance release order to the head sentence was not disproportionate, as it took into account the need to ensure public safety and the appellant's risk of reoffending. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

The court's final orders were that the appellant's application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentences imposed by the lower courts remained in effect, and the appellant was required to serve the terms as determined.

Orders