R v Akok Lueth Noi

Case [2007] NSWDC 383


CITATION: R v Akok Lueth NOI [2007] NSWDC 383
HEARING DATE(S): 25/05/07, 14/06/07
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 14 June 2007
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Norrish QC DCJ
DECISION: Term of imprisonment for 2 years pursuant to s12 Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Execution of the sentence is suspended for the term of the sentence. Offender to be released from custody on condition he enter into a good behaviour bond for the term of the sentence.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - robbery using corporeal violence with wounding in company
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900
CASES CITED: R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
Henry v The Queen (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Lattouf (unrep, 1996 NSWCCA)
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1048
R v SDM [2001] NSWCCA 158
R v Pham (1991) 55 ACR 12
The Queen v AEM & Ors [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v GDP (1991) 53 ACR 112
R v DM [2005] NSWCCA 181
DB v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 27
Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Attorney General's Application No 1 (2002) 56 NSWLR 147
PARTIES: Regina
Akok Lueth Noi
FILE NUMBER(S): 2997/11/0180
SOLICITORS: C Allison - Director of Public Prosecutions
F Way - Legal Aid Service

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Sentencing is not a matter of absolute truths or mathematical precision. In R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131 the Court of Criminal Appeal in discussing Pt 4 Div 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, whilst noting that it was a further pointer towards the continuation of a wider area of discretion, it was one without resort to some rigid mechanistic or arithmetic approach, which would be unsuited to the difficult task of sentencing [126]. In Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at [39], [42] and [46], in the vicinity of that part of the judgment which has come to dominate sentencing in New South Wales, the majority of the High Court said, that it was highly undesirable that the process of sentencing should become more technical than it was already. It should be emphasised that aspects of sentencing were not to be attended by “excessive subtleties and refinements”. It also pointed out in that judgment that sentencing was not a process that leads to a single correct answer, arrived at by some process admitting of mathematical precision. This was precisely the thrust of the High Court judgment in Markarian of two years ago. In Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 at [77] the High Court in striking down guideline judgments for Commonwealth sentencing in New South Wales, referred to the core of the difficulty lying in the “complexity of the sentencing task”. The High Court has continually acknowledged that a sentencing judge must take into account a wide variety…

Continue reading R v Akok Lueth Noi

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Akok Lueth Noi [2007] NSWDC 383
Case
[2007] NSWDC 383
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Akok Lueth Noi, was convicted of robbery in company using corporeal violence with wounding. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to be applied and the correct term of imprisonment and conditions of any non-custodial sentence to be imposed.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for robbery, including the need for deterrence and general deterrence, as well as the offender's culpability and the circumstances of the offence. The court also considered the offender's background and circumstances, including his age, lack of criminal history, and the impact of his offending on his family and community. The court determined that the appropriate sentence was a term of imprisonment for two years, suspended for the term of the sentence, with the offender to be released from custody on condition he enter into a good behaviour bond for the term of the sentence.

The court's reasoning was based on the need to balance the need for deterrence with the offender's personal circumstances. The court noted that the offender had shown remorse and had taken steps to address his offending behaviour. The court also considered the impact of the offence on the victim and the community. The court determined that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate in this case, given the offender's background and circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that the offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two years, suspended for the term of the sentence, and that he be released from custody on condition he enter into a good behaviour bond for the term of the sentence. The offender was also ordered to pay a fine of $500 and a victim surcharge of $100.

Orders

Orders of the court

Term of imprisonment for 2 years pursuant to s12 Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Execution of the sentence is suspended for the term of the sentence. Offender to be released from custody on condition he enter into a good behaviour bond for the term of the sentence.

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.