R v Heaven - [2020] NSWDC 347

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Heaven [2020] NSWDC 347
Hearing dates: 3 April 2020
Decision date: 03 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted.
Form 1 matter taken into account on sentence imposed.
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months comprising a NPP 2 years, 9 months and 21 days to commence on 24 May 2019 and to expire on 16 March 2022 on which date the offender is eligible for parole, and a balance of term of 11 months and 7 days to expire on 23 February 2023.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Sentence - witness agree to accept a benefit to procure the acquittal of a person of a serious indictable offence - larceny – seriousness of offence - importance of protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system – relevance of whether offender was instigator – relevance of nature of reward & of the serious indictable offence it was intended to achieve an acquittal of - the offender as victim a key prosecution witness – degree of planning/premeditation - subjective matters

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act1900

Cases Cited:
Cross v R [2016] NSWCCA 214
Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87
Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 88
Marinellis v R [2006] NSWCCA 307
R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119
R v Kim NSWCCA (5 September 1996 Unreported);
R v Reid [2016] NSWCCA 151
R v Taouk [1992] 65 A Crim R 3392
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Cross v R [2016] NSWCCA 214

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Heaven, Christopher
Representation: Solicitors:
Crown: Mr D Waldmann
Defence: Mr J Hall

File Number(s): 2019/162853

Judgment

Christopher Heaven appears for sentence in respect of an offence of witness agree to accept a benefit to procure the acquittal of a person of a serious indictable offence, contrary to s 321(2)(a)/324 of the Crimes Act1900. The maximum penalty provided is 14 years’ imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period. When being dealt with for that offence, he asks that the Court take into account a further offence of larceny of an Apple MacBook from Cash Converters on 11 March 2019, contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900.
The primary offence was committed on 9 to 24 May 2019 and he was arrested and charged on 24 May 2019. He has been in custody solely in relation to this matter since 24 May 2019. The plea of guilty having been entered at the earliest opportunity, he is entitled to 25% discount for the utility of the plea alone, as referred to in Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383. Such a discount will be provided.
The facts are agreed and are as follows:

In respect of the charge of agreeing to accept a benefit to procure the acquittal of a person of a serious indictable offence:

The co-offenders are Christopher Heaven and Anissa Sypher. The co accused is Tamsin Elliff.
Heaven and…

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 Heaven

Details

AGLC: R v Heaven [2020] NSWDC 347
Case: [2020] NSWDC 347
Decision Date: 03 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Heaven, the defendant stood convicted of procuring the acquittal of another individual through offering a witness a benefit. The court was tasked with sentencing the defendant, who had been found guilty of procuring a witness to accept a benefit to secure the acquittal of a person charged with a serious indictable offence. The offence in question was larceny, and the defendant had played a significant role as a key prosecution witness. The court was required to consider the gravity of the offence, the importance of upholding the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the circumstances surrounding the defendant's involvement. Specifically, the court had to weigh the nature of the reward offered to the witness, the seriousness of the indictable offence intended to be procured, and the extent of the defendant's planning and premeditation. Additionally, the court needed to consider the subjective factors such as whether the defendant was the instigator and the degree of planning involved.

The court found that the defendant's actions had serious implications for the administration of justice, as they undermined the fairness and integrity of the legal process. The nature of the reward offered and the seriousness of the offence it was intended to procure an acquittal for were critical in assessing the gravity of the offence. The court highlighted the importance of deterring such conduct to protect the criminal justice system. The defendant's role as a key prosecution witness was also a significant factor in the sentencing process. The court considered the degree of planning and premeditation involved in the offence, along with the subjective factors of whether the defendant was the instigator. Ultimately, the court concluded that a substantial sentence was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to deter similar conduct in the future.

In light of the considerations outlined above, the court sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment for three years and nine months. This sentence comprised a non-parole period of two years, nine months, and 21 days, which was to commence on 24 May 2019 and to expire on 16 March 2022. The balance of the term was set to expire on 23 February 2023. The court took into account the Form 1 matter, which contributed to the sentence imposed. The defendant was deemed eligible for parole on 16 March 2022, marking the end of the non-parole period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted.

Form 1 matter taken into account on sentence imposed.

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months comprising a NPP 2 years, 9 months and 21 days to commence on 24 May 2019 and to expire on 16 March 2022 on which date the offender is eligible for parole, and a balance of term of 11 months and 7 days to expire on 23 February 2023.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Heaven [2020] NSWDC 347
Hearing dates:	3 April 2020
Decision date:	03 April 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted. Form 1 matter taken into account on sentence imposed. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months comprising a NPP 2 years, 9 months and 21 days to commence on 24 May 2019 and to expire on 16 March 2022 on which date the offender is eligible for parole, and a balance of term of 11 months and 7 days to expire on 23 February 2023.
Catchwords:	CRIME – Sentence - witness agree to accept a benefit to procure the acquittal of a person of a serious indictable offence - larceny – seriousness of offence - importance of protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system – relevance of whether offender was instigator – relevance of nature of reward & of the serious indictable offence it was intended to achieve an acquittal of - the offender as victim a key prosecution witness – degree of planning/premeditation - subjective matters
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act1900
Cases Cited:	Cross v R [2016] NSWCCA 214 Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87 Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 88 Marinellis v R [2006] NSWCCA 307 R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119 R v Kim NSWCCA (5 September 1996 Unreported); R v Reid [2016] NSWCCA 151 R v Taouk [1992] 65 A Crim R 3392 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 Cross v R [2016] NSWCCA 214
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Heaven, Christopher
Representation:	Solicitors: Crown: Mr D Waldmann Defence: Mr J Hall
File Number(s):	2019/162853