Legal Research
Cases
R v Harrison

R v Harrison

Case [2001] NSWCCA 79 9 March 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
121 A Crim R 380

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v HARRISON [2001] NSWCCA 79 revised - 28/03/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60703/00

HEARING DATE(S): 9 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Leonie Maree Harrison

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Sperling J at 58; Carruthers AJ at 59

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/41/2000

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Moore DCJ

COUNSEL : M Grogan (Crown)
A C Haesler (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
D J Humphreys (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Crown appeal - - Break enter and steal - Receiving - Error of law in sentencing at first instance due to imposition of a global sentence for different offences - Sentence manifestly lenient - Crimes Act 1900, ss 112(1) and 189

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Cacciola (1998) 104 ACrimR 178
R v Cooper (NSWCCA, 13 July 1998, unreported)
R v Douglas (1998) 29 MVR 316
R v DWD (NSWCCA, 2 March 1998, unreported)
R v Eldridge (NSWCCA, 22April 1998, unreported)
R v Field (NSWCCA, 2 May 1996, unreported)
R v Galway (1998) 103 ACrimR 35
R v Gitt (NSWCCA, 18 May 1998, unreported)
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hood (NSWCCA, 9 July 1997, unreported)
R v Horne [1999] NSWCCA 391
R v Khamas (1999) 108 ACrimR 499
R v King [2001] NSWCCA 18
R v L (NSWCCA, 17 June 1996, unreported)
R v Lilley (2000) 111 ACrimR 468
R v Mastronardi (2000) 111 ACrimR 306
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Taylor [2000] NSWCCA 442
R v Webster [1999] NSWCCA 313
R v Yerkovic [2000] NSWCCA 281

DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed; 2. Sentence below quashed; 3. Respondent sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 18 months, commencing on 20 October 2000 for offences under s112(1) Crimes Act 1900; 4. Respondent sentenced to a fixed term of 18 months imprisonment, commencing on 20 October 2000 for offences under s189 Crimes Act 1900

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60703/00

SPIGELMAN CJ

SPERLING J

CARRUTHERS AJ

Friday 9 March 2001

REGINA v Leonie Maree HARRISON

JUDGMENT

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 from a sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Moore at the Wollongong District Court on 20 October 2000.

2 The Respondent, Leonie Maree Harrison, pleaded guilty to two counts of break enter and steal contrary to s112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and three counts of receiving contrary to s189 of the Crimes Act 1900. Judge Moore sentenced the Respondent to two years imprisonment to be served by periodic detention, with a non-parole period of eighteen months.

3 A legal error appears on…

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 Harrison

Details

AGLC: R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 79
Decision Date: 9 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Harrison, the Crown sought to appeal the sentence imposed by the District Court of New South Wales on the defendant for his convictions of break enter and steal and receiving. The Crown argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and that the trial judge had erred in law by imposing a global sentence for multiple offences. The defendant did not contest the Crown's appeal on the ground of sentence manifestly inadequate, but did challenge the submission that the trial judge had erred in imposing a global sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a global sentence for the defendant's multiple offences. The Crown submitted that the trial judge had failed to consider the totality of the offending, and that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The defendant contended that there was no error in imposing a global sentence, as the offences were part of a single course of conduct and the trial judge had adequately considered the totality of the offending. The court considered whether the trial judge had erred in imposing a global sentence for the defendant's multiple offences, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The court held that the trial judge had not erred in imposing a global sentence for the defendant's multiple offences, as the offences were part of a single course of conduct and the trial judge had adequately considered the totality of the offending. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and that the Crown's appeal should be allowed. The court noted that the trial judge had failed to consider the seriousness of the offences, and that the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the defendant's culpability or the need for general deterrence. The court ordered that the case be remitted to the District Court for re-sentencing.

The court remitted the case to the District Court for re-sentencing, and directed that the court consider the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's culpability, and the need for general deterrence. The court noted that the defendant's previous good character and prospects of rehabilitation were relevant factors to be considered in determining an appropriate sentence. The court also noted that the defendant's cooperation with the police and the prosecution was a relevant mitigating factor. The court did not specify the appropriate sentence to be imposed, but directed that the court consider the totality of the offending and impose a sentence that was proportionate to the defendant's culpability and the need for general deterrence.

Orders