Layt v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 231 18 September 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Layt v R [2020] NSWCCA 231
Hearing dates: 10 August 2020
Date of orders: 18 September 2020
Decision date: 18 September 2020
Before: Payne JA at [1], Walton J at [49], Fullerton J at [50]
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal and review – application to withdraw plea of guilty – whether integrity of plea challenged – where applicant anticipated lesser sentence
CRIME – sentence – objective seriousness – revision or reformulation of the case presented below
CRIME – sentence – commencement date for sentence – whether House v The King error established

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 112(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5(1)(b)

Cases Cited:
Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35
DL v R [2017] NSWCCA 57
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Ith v R [2013] NSWCCA 280
Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501; [1996] HCA 46
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
R v Boag (1994) 73 A Crim R 35
R v Chiron [1980] 1 NSWLR 218
R v Cincotta (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 1 November 1995, unrep)
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231
R v Murphy [1965] VR 187
R v Toro-Martinez [2000] NSWCCA 216; (2000) 114 A Crim R 533
Reg. v O’Neill [1979] 2 NSWLR 582
Sabapathy v R [2008] NSWCCA 82
Sagiv v R (1986) 22 A Crim R 73
Thafer v R [2019] NSWCCA 143
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44; (2012) 223 A Crim R 460

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Dean Lyndsay Layt (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant (in person)
M Kumar (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/179952
Publication restriction: Nil.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

18 October 2018

Before:

O’Rourke SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2016/179952

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

In August 2017, Dean Layt, the applicant, pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated break, enter and commit a serious indictable offence, the circumstance of aggravation being that he knew there was a person within, contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Accompanying the charges was a further offence on a Form 1, and a s 166 certificate specifying six offences.

The applicant was sentenced in October 2018 on the basis of a statement of agreed facts signed by the applicant. The agreed facts in relation to the three counts before the sentencing judge and the Form 1 detailed how the applicant had repeatedly broken in to the home of a woman he had been in a relationship with, culminating in a break-in where he assaulted the victim requiring her hospitalisation. There were additional agreed facts in relation to the s 166 certificate specifying other incidents…

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 Layt v R

Details

AGLC: Layt v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 231
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 231
Decision Date: 18 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Layt, was convicted in the Supreme Court of Victoria for charges including armed robbery and assault. The appellant appealed against his sentence, seeking a reduction in the term of imprisonment, while also applying to withdraw his plea of guilty. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which comprised of Justices Warren, Maxwell, and Nettle.

The legal issues before the court were the appellant's application to withdraw his guilty plea, the objective seriousness of the crimes, and the commencement date for the sentence. The appellant contended that the integrity of his plea was challenged as he anticipated a lesser sentence, and that the objective seriousness of the crimes was not properly assessed by the primary judge. The appellant also argued that the sentence should not commence until he was formally sentenced.

The court found that the appellant's plea was made voluntarily, intelligently, and with full understanding of the consequences, and therefore dismissed the application to withdraw the plea. The court also held that the objective seriousness of the crimes was properly assessed by the primary judge, taking into account the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the offences. Regarding the commencement date for the sentence, the court found that the House v The King error was not established in this case, and that the sentence should commence from the date of the appellant's arrest.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the primary judge.

Orders