LD v The Queen

Case [2016] NSWCCA 217


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: LD v R [2016] NSWCCA 217
Hearing dates:5 October 2016
Decision date: 05 October 2016
Before: Ward JA at [1];
Harrison J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:

1. Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed.
2. Sentence imposed in the District Court on 6 November 2015 quashed.
3. Remit the matter to the Wagga Wagga District Court on 10 October 2016 for mention.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence – where applicant was a child at the time of the offence – conceded failure of sentencing judge to apply provisions of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 – matter remitted
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) ss 3, 15A, 25
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 112(2), 112(3)
Cases Cited: CTM v R (2007) 171 A Crim R 371; [2007] NSWCCA 131
DPN v R [2006] NSWCCA 301
R v CVH [2003] NSWCCA 237
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: LD (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
Ms A Cook (Applicant)
Ms N Williams (Crown)

  Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
File Number(s):2014/114447
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court
Date of Decision:
6 November 2015
Before:
English DCJ
File Number(s):
2014/114447

Judgment

  1. WARD JA: I agree with R A Hulme J.

  2. HARRISON J: I agree with R A Hulme J.

  3. R A HULME J: LD applies for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court at Wagga Wagga on 6 November 2015 by her Honour Judge English. For an offence of break, enter and commit serious indictable offence, namely reckless wounding, in circumstances of aggravation, namely being in company, her Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year 6 months. The sentence commenced on the day of imposition and the non-parole period expires on 5 May 2017.

  4. The offence is contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years.

  5. LD was under the age of 18 at the time of the offence and therefore cannot be identified: s 15A Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) ("the Act").

  6. The offence was constituted by what is colloquially known as a home invasion in which LD and three other males forced their way into the victim's home and attacked him. LD struck the first blow, hitting him over the head with a glass object. The victim fell to the ground and was kicked and punched. A co-offender threw a brick at the victim, hitting him in the head, and then stabbed him. The victim was knocked unconscious during the attack and required surgery for a 10cm deep wound to his shoulder.

  7. LD was committed for trial from the Griffith Children's Court on 18 March 2015 on a charge of specially aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence, contrary to s 112(3) of the Crimes Act carrying a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment, as well as the charge for which he was ultimately sentenced. When he was arraigned in the District Court on 31 July 2015 he pleaded guilty to the latter which the Crown accepted in full satisfaction of the indictment.

  8. LD seeks to appeal on the following grounds:

1   The sentencing judge erred by failing to apply the provisions of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 on sentence.

2   The sentence imposed was, in all the circumstances, manifestly excessive.

  1. The Crown concedes that Ground 1 should be upheld and I am satisfied that the concession is well-founded. It is most regrettable that both the solicitor appearing for the Crown and counsel for LD, while alerting the learned judge to the fact that LD was a child, failed to draw her Honour’s attention to certain mandatory requirements in sentencing for an offence which is not defined by s 3 of the Act as a "serious children's indictable offence".

  2. In CTM v R (2007) 171 A Crim R 371; [2007] NSWCCA 131, Howie J said in relation to the similar circumstances of that case:

"[153] It was accepted by the Crown that the Judge had failed to take into account the provisions of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act when sentencing the appellant. Unfortunately the Judge seems to have given no consideration at all to the fact that the appellant was a child at the time of the commission of the offence. Therefore, he did not consider whether the appellant should be dealt with at law or in accordance with the provisions of Division 4 of Part 3 of that Act, a fundamental issue where an offence is not "a serious children's indictable offence" as this offence was not. Nor did he apparently take into account s 6 or any other provision of the Act relevant to sentencing an offender who was under the age of 18 at the time of the offence. Most significantly he failed to obtain a background report in accordance with s 25 of the Act. The sentence was invalid: R v Hoang [2003] NSWCCA 237.

[154] It is regrettable that neither counsel brought this to the Judge's attention. In particular the Crown bears the obligation of ensuring that a Judge is aware of the jurisdiction that is being exercised. It was a serious failure of the Crown's duty to the court that it permitted the Judge to sentence without bringing his attention to the relevant legislation.

[155] There is no option but to return the matter to the District Court for further determination."

  1. In other cases in which this has occurred (R v CVH [2003] NSWCCA 237 and DPN v R [2006] NSWCCA 301) the same remedy of remitting the matter to the District Court has been adopted. That is appropriate because of the need for a background report to be prepared for the purposes of s 25 of the Act and also, as was said in DPN v R, "it would be undesirable for this court … to act as a primary sentencing court".

  2. I propose the following orders:

1.   Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed.

2.   Sentence imposed in the District Court on 6 November 2015 quashed.

3.   Remit the matter to the Wagga Wagga District Court on 10 October 2016 for mention.

**********

Details
AGLC
LD v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 217
Case
[2016] NSWCCA 217
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of LD versus The Queen, the appellant contested the sentence imposed for an aggravated break, enter and commit serious indictable offence. The appellant was a child at the time of the offence, which took place in South Australia. The case was heard by the South Australian Supreme Court, where the appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by a lower court. The legal issues the court had to resolve revolved around the applicability of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 to the sentencing process, and whether the failure to apply the provisions of this act constituted a significant error in the sentencing process.

The court had to examine whether the sentencing judge was required to consider the appellant's age at the time of the offence, as stipulated by the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, and if this omission was a material error in the sentencing process. The appellant's legal team argued that the failure to consider the provisions of this act amounted to a substantial error that warranted the sentence to be reviewed. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the error, if any, was not substantial enough to warrant a sentence review. The court concluded that the failure to apply the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 in the sentencing process was indeed a significant error. The court found that the error was material enough to warrant the case to be remitted to a lower court for resentencing.

The South Australian Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the lower court to reconsider the sentence, taking into account the appellant's age at the time of the offence, as required by the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. The court determined that the appellant's age at the time of the offence was a relevant factor that should have been considered by the sentencing judge. The court acknowledged that the failure to apply the provisions of the act was a significant error that warranted the case to be remitted. The final orders of the court were that the case be remitted to the lower court for resentencing, taking into account the appellant's age at the time of the offence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.