R v Buckley - [2002] NSWCCA 44

CITATION: R v Buckley [2002] NSWCCA 44

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60799 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 22/02/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Robin Andrew Buckley

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1, 16; Wood CJ at CL at 14; Bell J at 17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0683

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL : A: Paul Byrne SC
R: Richard Maidment SC

SOLICITORS: A: Legal Aid Commission - David Barrow
R: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

CATCHWORDS: Application to vary sentence - whether non parole period could be reduced - appeal dismissed.

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CCA 60799 of 1998

MEAGHER JA
WOOD CJ at CL
BELL J
Friday, 22 February 2002

REGINA v ROBIN ANDREW BUCKLEY

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: In this matter there is an application for an appeal by Mr Buckley who was found guilty in the District Court on a large number of cases, in fact seventeen counts arising out of financial dishonesty. The counts in question arose in some cases under New South Wales legislation and in some cases under Commonwealth legislation. His Honour grouped them in eight separate pairs of offences and the other was a single count, count 5. In relation to the eight separate pairs of sentences his Honour imposed concurrent sentences of six months and accumulated the sentences of eight pairs to give an overall sentence of four years in relation to those sixteen counts.

2 In relation to count 5 his Honour imposed a sentence of four years and made it cumulative on the sentence of other counts making a total sentence of eight years. In relation to the total sentence his Honour made it clear that his intention was that Mr Buckley should serve six years in custody and two years on parole. The present application is to vary the sentence of his Honour.

3 There is very little, if anything, in dispute. "I regard it", his Honour said, "as being one of the most serious examples of this sort of fraudulent behaviour with which the courts have had to deal. There is no present prospect of any refund".

4 What Mr Buckley did was approach various so-called investors and requested them to invest sums of money. Many of them did. Sometimes the sums were very high, $50,000 and more and sometimes less. The sort of thing which he said, if I may take his inducements to one investor, the unfortunate Mrs Becke, was this:

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 Buckley

Details

AGLC: R v Buckley [2002] NSWCCA 44
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 44
Decision Date: 22 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Buckley, the respondent, who had been convicted of serious criminal offences, sought to have his sentence varied by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent had been sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment, which included a substantial non-parole period. The appeal centred around the respondent's request to have the non-parole period reduced, arguing that the original sentence was excessively harsh and disproportionate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the non-parole period could be considered to be excessive and whether the respondent's sentence should be varied on those grounds. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing and the appropriate weight to be given to the original sentence imposed by the lower court. The court also had to balance the respondent's right to seek a variation in his sentence with the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court was within the range of appropriate penalties for the crimes committed. The court held that there was no basis for the respondent's contention that the non-parole period was excessive. The court emphasised that it was not its role to substitute its own view of the appropriate sentence for that of the original sentencing judge. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's application to vary his sentence was denied. The court confirmed that the original sentence, including the non-parole period, remained unchanged.

Orders