R v A - [1999] NSWCCA 61

CITATION: Regina v A. [1999] NSWCCA 61

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60639/97

HEARING DATE(S): 12 March, 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 March 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v A.

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J; Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:

COUNSEL: J S Andrews for the Appellant
R E Ellis for the Crown

SOLICITORS: T A Murphy for the Applicant
S E O'Connor for the Crown

CATCHWORDS: Severity of sentence - larceny of motor vehicles - malicious damage to property - obtaining money by deception - accessory after fact to thefts of motor vehicles - possession of implements capable of being used in motor vehicle theft - Discount for assistance.

ACTS CITED: s.154AA, S.188, s.178BA, s.344A, s.177, s.195(b) & s.114(1)(b) of Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
R. v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R. v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
Pearce v R. (1998) 72 ALJR1416

DECISION: 1 The Court makes the following orders; (1) Order that the applicant be known by the letter "A" and that no material be published which would identify or tend to identify the applicant; (2) Leave to appeal granted; (3) Each sentence quashed; (4) In lieu thereof; (i) on counts 5,6 and 7 on the second indictment ; (all of which were offences of larceny of motor vehicles) the applicant be sentenced to a total term of penal servitude for three and a half years made up of a minimum term of two years and four months to commence on 24 November 1997 and expire on 23 March 2000 and an additional term of one year and two months to commence on 24 March 2000 and expire on 23 May 2001; (ii) on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 on the first indictment, and counts 1 - 4 in the second indictment and the first count on which the applicant was committed for sentence by the Local Court ; (ie, all remaining offences of larceny of motor vehicles, one offence of stealing, the offences of receiving, and of malicious damage to property); a total term of penal servitude for two years eight months, made up of a minimum term of one year and eight months to commence on 24 March 1999 and expire on 23 November 2000, and an additional term of twelve months to commence on 24 November 2000 and expire on 23 November 2001; (iii) on counts 12, 18, 24, 26 and 27 on the first indictment ; (ie. the offences of obtaining or attempting to obtain money by deception); a fixed term of penal servitude for one year and nine months to be served concurrently with the earlier of the sentences already imposed, that is, to commence on 24 November 1997 and expire on 23 August 1999; (iv) on counts 6 and 25 on the first indictment and counts 8,…

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 R v A

Details

AGLC: R v A [1999] NSWCCA 61
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 61
Decision Date: 30 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v A, the appellant, represented by counsel, stood trial for his involvement in a series of motor vehicle thefts, malicious damage to property, and obtaining money by deception. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith. The appellant was charged with being an accessory after the fact to thefts of motor vehicles, possession of implements capable of being used in motor vehicle theft, and other related offences. The prosecution argued for a severe sentence, considering the appellant's persistent criminal conduct and the harm caused to the victims.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was the appropriate level of severity in sentencing the appellant, given the nature and extent of his criminal activities. The court was required to weigh the mitigating factors, such as the appellant's cooperation with authorities and his potential for rehabilitation, against the gravity of the crimes committed. Another significant issue was whether the discount for the appellant's assistance should apply in determining the final sentence.

The court found that the appellant's actions constituted serious criminal conduct, causing significant harm to multiple victims. However, the court acknowledged the appellant's assistance in identifying other offenders and his potential for rehabilitation. After carefully considering all the circumstances, the court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crimes while also taking into account the mitigating factors. The court concluded that the discount for assistance was warranted and applied it in arriving at the final sentence. The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a specific duration and parole conditions as determined by the court.

Orders