Lyons v The Queen - [1993] HCATrans 370

.~._
~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Hobart No H6 of 1993
B e t w e e n -
BARRY JAMES LYONS

Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave
to appeal

DAWSON J
TOOHEY J

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON THURSDAY, 9 DECEMBER 1993, AT 10.38 AM

Lyons

9/12/93

MR T.J. ELLIS:

May it please the Court, I appear for the

applicant. (instructed by Clarke & Gee)

MR D.J. BUGG:

May it please the Court, I appear with my

learned friend, MR J.N. PERKS, for the respondent.
(instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions
(Tasmania))

DAWSON J:	Mr Ellis.
MR ELLIS: Thank you, Your Honour.	Your Honours, the point

sought to be raised in this application is that
there ought to be, if there is not already, a
universal and consistent rule that a sentencing
court, upon a plea of guilty, must give a discount
in the sentence which it would have otherwise given
were it - - -

GAUDRON J:

Your basic premise must surely be open to very

serious question, that there ought to be such a
rule, a general rule. Surely, it all depends on
the circumstances.

MR ELLIS: That is one stream of authority but, in my

submission, it only and demonstrably leads to
capriciousness whereas the pragmatic view which
seems to have prevailed in South Australia and now Western Australia obviates many of those arguments
which are really insoluble such as is there true contrary, Your Honour but, in my submission, the
contrition; is there an answerable case and so on.
benefits to be gained from the universality of such
a rule outweigh those.

GAUDRON J: There is certainly no necessity for such a rule.

There may be benefits; there may be not; they are
matters that are surely open to be determined in
the facts of a particular case.

DAWSON J: And, really, it comes down to this, when an

accused pleads guilty to manslaughter when he is in
danger of being convicted of murder, it is in his
own interests to do so and it hardly demonstrates
something which is particularly meritorious on his
part.

MR ELLIS: In the general administration of justice, it

would be in the interests for him to plead guilty
if he was guilty. It is also in the interests of
justice that he not chance his arm on the basis
that he might succeed or he might not but there is
no difference to him in terms of sentence if he
does.

Lyons

9/12/93

The Full Court in Victoria, although

proceeding under a statutory basis has, in Giakis
and Morton, expressly rejected as a circumstance
disentitling the discount in sentence for a plea of
guilty, the fact that the accused faced a
conviction for a more serious charge. Again, it is
a matter of pragmatism, perhaps, to an extent
overriding - - -

GAUDRON J: That is hardly 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 Lyons v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lyons v The Queen [1993] HCATrans 370
Case: [1993] HCATrans 370
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Lyons, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of a lower court. The central dispute concerned the principles governing the application of sentence discounts for guilty pleas in criminal proceedings.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether there should be a universal and consistent rule requiring sentencing courts to grant a discount on sentences when an offender pleads guilty. The applicant argued that such a rule would promote consistency and avoid capriciousness in sentencing, even if it meant overlooking the specific merits of individual cases, such as the strength of the prosecution's evidence or the genuineness of contrition.

The applicant contended that the pragmatic benefits of a universal rule, such as encouraging guilty pleas for the efficient administration of justice, outweighed the difficulties in assessing individual circumstances. The Court, however, questioned the premise of a universal rule, suggesting that the necessity and benefits of such a rule were matters to be determined on the facts of each case. The Court also noted that pleading guilty when facing a more serious charge, such as murder when charged with manslaughter, is often in the accused's own best interests and may not necessarily demonstrate exceptional merit. The applicant further argued that differing state policies on this issue led to fundamental differences in principle and inconsistent outcomes.

Orders