R v Cohen

Case [2005] NSWCCA 230
CITATION:

R v Cohen [2005] NSWCCA 230
HEARING DATE(S): In chambers
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 


28 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF:

Santow JA; Hidden J; Adams J
DECISION:

Revised Orders; see para [3]
CATCHWORDS:

Variation of Orders.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act s43
PARTIES:

Christopher Lawrence COHEN (appellant)
REGINA (respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S):

CCA 60872/01
COUNSEL:

S M Kluss (Appellant)
D M Woodburne (Crown)
SOLICITORS:

Ross Hill & Associates (Appellant)
S E O’Connor (Crown)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

01/61/0003

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:

Andrew ADCJ


                          CCA 60872/01

                          SANTOW JA
                          HIDDEN J
                          ADAMS J

                          28 JUNE 2005
Regina v Christopher Lawrence COHEN
Judgment

1 THE COURT: The Court delivered judgment in this matter on 12 September 2002 (Santow JA, Hidden J and Adams J). Application has been made by the Director of Public Prosecutions to re-open this matter to correct a sentencing error pursuant to s43 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Essentially the issue concerns the fact that the trial judge, Andrew ADCJ, made an error of dating the sentence from the date of Mr Cohen’s arrest which he stated to be “on 3 May 2001” when that was incorrect and should have been “3 May 2000” when Mr Cohen was in fact arrested. When the matter was heard by this Court the issue in relation to the commencement date of the sentences was not raised and the appeal was dismissed without consideration of the issue.

2 The Crown has indicated that it does not oppose the making of the following orders.


      REVISED ORDERS

3 Accordingly the orders of the Court are as follows:

      (1) The matter be re-opened pursuant to s43 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for the purpose of making the following orders;

      (2) The sentence imposed by Andrew ADCJ on 26 November 2001 be quashed;

      (3) In lieu thereof Christopher Lawrence Cohen is sentenced:

          (a) in respect of Counts 1 and 2, concurrent terms of imprisonment of eight years to commence on 3 May 2000 with a non-parole period of six years to expire on 2 May 2006;

          (b) in respect of Counts 3 and 4, concurrent terms of imprisonment of six years to commence on 3 May 2000 with a non-parole period of four years and six months to expire on 2 November 2004,

          (c) in respect of Counts 5 to 7, concurrent terms of imprisonment of two years to commence on 3 May 2000 and to expire on 2 May 2002.

      **********
Details
AGLC
R v Cohen [2005] NSWCCA 230
Case
[2005] NSWCCA 230
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cohen was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondent, Cohen, appealed against an order made by a lower court which found him guilty of a crime. Cohen sought a variation of the orders made by the lower court, arguing that they were unfair and unjust. The Crown opposed the appeal, maintaining that the orders were appropriate and within the bounds of the law.

The legal issues before the court were whether the orders made by the lower court were just and whether they should be varied. The court had to consider the principles of fairness and justice in determining whether the orders were appropriate. The court also had to consider the arguments presented by both parties and determine whether the appeal should be upheld.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the orders made by the lower court were just and appropriate. The court held that the principles of fairness and justice had been observed in the making of the orders. The court found that the arguments presented by Cohen did not warrant a variation of the orders. The court held that the appeal was not well-founded and dismissed it. The court emphasised that the orders made by the lower court were within the bounds of the law and that there was no basis for varying them.

No further orders were made by the court. The orders made by the lower court remained in place, and Cohen was required to comply with them. The court's decision was final, and Cohen was not permitted to appeal further. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of fairness and justice in the administration of the criminal law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.