McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Hulme J at 1; Hislop J at 1
DECISION:
See paragraph 90
PARTIES:
Regina William Mohi HARRIS
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2006/2907
COUNSEL:
Crown: P Ingram Respondent: G Jones
SOLICITORS:
Crown: S Kavanagh Respondent: S O'Connor
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
06/21/0208
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Hughes DCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
24.10.06
- 29 -
2006/2907
McCLELLAN HULME J HISLOP J
Monday 14 May 2007
R v William Mohi HARRIS
Judgment
1 THE COURT: In these proceedings the Crown has appealed, on grounds of manifest inadequacy, against the sentences imposed on the Respondent by Judge Hughes on 24 October last. The offences and the sentences imposed were:-
1. On 15 March 2006 breaking and entering a dwelling house at 3B Undercliffe Lane, Earlwood and stealing there from in circumstances of aggravation, viz. being in company with another person – imprisonment for a non-parole period of 12 months from 30 May 2006 together with a further term of 10 months from 30 May 2007 to 29 May 2008;
2. On 15 March 2006 breaking and entering a dwelling house at 3A Undercliffe Lane, Earlwood and stealing there from in circumstances of aggravation, viz. being in company with another person – imprisonment for a non-parole period of 12 months from 30 May 2006 together with a further term of 10 months from 30 May 2007 to 29 May 2008; and
3. On 21 February 2006, at Redfern, taking and driving a conveyance registered number QCL 786 without the consent of the owner thereof – imprisonment for a fixed term of 6 months commencing on 30 May 2006.
2 The effective total sentence for the 3 offences was thus imprisonment for a non-parole period of 12 months from 30 May 2006 together with a further term of 10 months from 30 May 2007 to 29 May 2008.
3 The break, enter and steal offences contravened s112(2) of the Crimes Act and each rendered the Respondent liable to imprisonment for 20 years. Division 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act prescribes a period of 5 years as a standard non-parole period for offences under that sub-section. Had there not been the circumstance of aggravation, the maximum penalty to which the Respondent would have been liable would have been 14 years if tried on indictment. Being aggravated, the breaking and entering offences with which the Applicant was charged had to be so tried. The taking and driving offence contravened s154A of the Crimes Act and rendered the Respondent liable to imprisonment for 5 years if tried on indictment.
4 The circumstances of that offence were that the Respondent was driving the relevant vehicle when stopped by police. It had been stolen on the previous day and when stopped, its key barrel was observed to be…
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 Harris
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Harris [2007] NSWCCA 130
Case
[2007] NSWCCA 130
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of the Regina versus Harris, the appellant, a former police officer, appealed against his sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria. Harris had been found guilty of multiple counts of perjury and misconduct in public office, stemming from actions taken during an investigation into a criminal offence. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the County Court was manifestly inadequate. Harris argued that the sentence, which consisted of a fine and a suspended sentence, did not reflect the seriousness of his misconduct and the impact it had on the integrity of the criminal justice system.
The court considered the gravity of the offences, the appellant's role as a public servant, and the necessity for general and specific deterrence. It was emphasised that offences committed by public officers, particularly those involving dishonesty, require robust punishment to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The court noted that while the County Court had taken into account various factors in sentencing, it appeared to have under-estimated the seriousness of the offences. The appeal court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and remitted the matter to the County Court for re-sentencing.
Upon re-sentencing, the County Court imposed a custodial sentence of eighteen months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of twelve months. The appellant's appeal against this sentence was subsequently dismissed. The court concluded that the re-imposed sentence appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. It was determined that the original sentence did not adequately address the impact of the appellant's actions on the integrity of the criminal justice system.