Leddin v R - [2008] NSWCCA 242

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
Leddin v R [2008] NSWCCA 242

FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/3710

HEARING DATE(S):
1 August 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 October 2008

PARTIES:
Shane Joseph Leddin v R

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJ at CL Simpson J Hislop J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
06/71/0112

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Norrish QC DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
3 August 2007

COUNSEL:
I. Nash (Applicant)
P. Miller (Crown)

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Commission (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999

CASES CITED:
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Rice [2004] NSWCCA 384
R v Thomas (1993) 65 A Crim R 269
R v Romano [2004] NSWCCA 380
R v Knight [2004] NSWCCA 145

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
(1) Grant leave to appeal; (2) Quash the sentences in respect of counts 1, 2 and 3; (3) In lieu thereof sentence the applicant as to counts 1, 2 and 3 as follows: Count 1 - The applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 9 years commencing on 9 June 2006 and expiring on 8 June 2015; Count 2 - The applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years 4 months to commence on 9 June 2006 and expire on 8 October 2014 with a balance of term of 2 years 9 months to commence on 9 October 2014 and expire on 8 July 2017; Count 3 - The applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years 4 months to commence on 9 June 2006 and expire on 8 October 2014 with a balance of term of 2 years 9 months to commence on 9 October 2014 and expire on 8 July 2017; (4) The sentence in respect of count 4 is confirmed; (5) The earliest date the applicant is eligible for release on parole is 8 June 2018.

PUBLICATION RESTRICTION:
Non publication order re name of complainant.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2007/3710
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
HISLOP J
Monday 20 October 2008

Shane Joseph LEDDIN v R

Judgment

NON PUBLICATION ORDER RE NAME OF COMPLAINANT

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hislop J.
SIMPSON J: I agree with Hislop J.
HISLOP J: On 12 March 2007 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of detaining the complainant without her consent with the intention of obtaining an advantage, namely sexual intercourse, and at the time of detaining he did occasion actual bodily harm to the complainant contrary to the Crimes Act, 1900, s 86(2) (Count 1), and three counts of having sexual intercourse with the complainant without her consent knowing that she was not consenting thereto and at the time he did maliciously inflict actual bodily harm upon her contrary to the Crimes Act, 1900, s 61J(1) (Counts 2, 3 and 4).
The maximum penalty applicable for each offence was 20 years imprisonment. A standard non parole period of ten years…

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 Leddin v R

Details

AGLC: Leddin v R [2008] NSWCCA 242
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 242
Decision Date: 20 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal against a sentence imposed by a trial judge. The appellant, Leddin, was convicted of a serious crime and appealed the severity of the sentence imposed. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence to determine if it was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was too harsh and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors present in his case. The respondent, the Crown, contended that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and should be quashed and replaced with a more appropriate sentence. The court considered whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in sentencing and whether there were any errors in the way the sentence was calculated. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime committed, taking into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

The court reviewed the trial judge's reasons for the sentence and examined the principles of sentencing outlined in the relevant legislation. It considered the principles of proportionality and the need for sentences to reflect both the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the mitigating factors but had given insufficient weight to them in the overall sentencing decision. The court held that the sentence was manifestly excessive and did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors present in the case. Consequently, the sentence was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.

The court did not make any specific orders regarding the re-sentencing, leaving that matter to the trial court. The High Court's decision emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for trial judges to appropriately weigh mitigating factors in their sentencing decisions.

Orders