Legal Research
Cases
Lawson v The Queen

Lawson v The Queen

Case [2011] NSWCCA 44 22 March 2011

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: LAWSON v REGINA [2011] NSWCCA 44
Hearing dates: Monday 29 November 2010
Decision date: 22 March 2011
Before: Hall J at 1
Latham J at 118
Price J at 119
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal against conviction be granted.
(2) The appeal against conviction be dismissed.
(3) Leave to the applicant to appeal against sentence be granted.
(4) The appeal against sentence be dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - conviction appeal - conspiracy to interfere with Crown witnesses and intent to cause grievous bodily harm - inculpatory statement obtained by recording device on undercover police officer - initial plea of guilty to obtain entry by unlawful detention and two counts of conspire to cause grievous bodily harm - attempt to withdraw plea after sentence - applicant contended a lack of knowledge regarding the plea and no evidence to support conspiracy charges - recording device material suggested a fully formed conspiracy - conviction appeal dismissed
Sentence appeal - whether the conspiracy was a fleeting conspiracy - whether material adduced in sentencing offender taken into account that was not in evidence - although taken into account, material would not have affected the trial judge-s assessment - appellate court intervention not warranted - whether Form 1 offences were enacted at the time of the offence - recognised by trial judge in reasons - no error despite inclusion on Form 1 - appeal dismissed
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1
Regina v Boag (1994) 73 A Crim R 35
Regina v Caruso (1988) 37 A Crim R 1
Regina v Chiron (1980) 1 NSWLR 218
Regina v Davey (NSWCCA, unreported 3 March 1995)
Regina v Favero [1999] NSWCCA 320
Regina v Foley (1963) 80 WN 726
Regina v Isaacs (1997) 41 NSWLR 374 Regina v Kouroumalos [2000] NSWCCA 453
Regina v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Regina v Murphy (1965) VR 187
Regina v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
Regina v Whitehead [2000] NSWCCA 400
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Noel LAWSON v REGINA
Representation: Counsel:
C: P Ingram SC
A: D Barrow
Solicitors:
C: S Kavanagh
A: S E O'Connor

File Number(s): 2007/11479
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2009-06-19 00:00:00

Before:

Bennett DCJ

File Number(s):

2007/11479

Judgment

HALL J: The applicant seeks leave by notice dated 8 July 2010 to appeal pursuant to s.5(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sydney District Court (Bennett DCJ) on 19 June 2009.

The applicant initially appeared before the District Court for trial on 22 April 2008 and, upon arraignment, he pleaded not guilty to eight counts.

The selection of the jury was deferred until the Court heard argument in relation to an application for the rejection of evidence, namely, a recording and transcript of a conversation covertly captured on 6 December 2006 pursuant to a…

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 Lawson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lawson v R [2011] NSWCCA 44
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 44
Decision Date: 22 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against conviction and sentence by Lawson, who was convicted of conspiracy to interfere with Crown witnesses and intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary contention by Lawson was that the plea of guilty, which was central to the conviction, was entered into without proper knowledge and understanding, and that there was insufficient evidence to support the conspiracy charges. Additionally, the appeal sought to address whether the conspiracy was a fleeting one and whether material that was not in evidence during the trial was appropriately considered during sentencing.

The court had to determine whether the plea of guilty was properly entered and whether there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy charges. The court also needed to assess whether the conspiracy was a fleeting one and if the material that was not in evidence during the trial was appropriately considered during sentencing. The court found that the plea of guilty was properly entered with Lawson's understanding and that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy charges. The recording device material suggested a fully formed conspiracy. The court further found that the conspiracy, although brief, was not fleeting, and that the material considered during sentencing, although not in evidence, would not have affected the trial judge's assessment. The court held that there was no error in the trial judge's consideration of the Form 1 offences, despite their inclusion on Form 1.

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed. The court found that the conviction was valid and that the sentence was appropriately determined. The court held that the conspiracy was not fleeting and that the consideration of additional material during sentencing did not warrant appellate court intervention. The trial judge's reasons, which recognised the inclusion of Form 1 offences, were deemed to be without error.

Orders