R v Jason Proud - [2002] NSWCCA 219

CITATION: R v Jason PROUD [2002] NSWCCA 219

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60787/01

HEARING DATE(S): 24/05/2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 May 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA v Jason James PROUD

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J at 1; Smart AJ at 34

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/31/0331

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Armitage J

COUNSEL : Mr P G Ingram - Crown
Mr A P Cook - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S.E. O' Connor - Crown
Legal Aid Commission -Applicant

CATCHWORDS: Appeal against severity of sentence - matter taken into account-need to find error-need to find appropriate sentence

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

CASES CITED:
R v Brown (2000) NSWCCA 428
Cameron v The Queen (2002) HCA 6
R v Henry 46 NSWLR 346
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Sharma (2002) NSWCCA 142
R v Simpson (2000) NSWCCA 534
R v Thompson and Houlten (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted - Appeal dismissed

- 11 -IN THE COURT OF

60787/01

DOWD J
SMART AJ
24 MAY 2002

R v Jason James PROUD

Judgment

1 DOWD J: The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed by Armitage DCJ on 15 November 2001, for a count of break, enter and steal, an offence contrary to s112 of the Crimes Act 1900 ( “the Act”), four matters also in breach of s112 of the Act, taken into account on a Form I, pursuant to s33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The maximum penalty for an offence under s112 of the Act is fourteen years imprisonment.

2 The applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a six-year term of imprisonment for the offence for which he stood for sentence, His Honour the Learned Sentencing Judge taking into account the four matters on the Form I. The sentence commenced on 10 July 2001, to expire on 9 July 2007, with a non-parole period of four years and six months, to expire 9 January 2006.

3 The offence for which the applicant stood for sentence was committed on 26 July 2000, at Charlestown in the Newcastle region, between 1pm and 4pm. The applicant gained entry to a private home unit owned by a sixty-eight-year-old woman, by smashing the toilet window with a rock. On accessing the premises, the applicant went into the bedroom, punched a hole in the base of the bedside table drawer, which had been locked, and stole cash held in three small red tins, being an amount of $40,000, this being the life savings of the victim and money she had received from her husband upon his death.

4 The four offences on the Form I occurred between September 2000, and March 2001. The first offence occurred on 26 September 2000 when the applicant broke into premises at North Belmont by smashing a glass panel in…

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 Jason Proud

Details

AGLC: R v Jason Proud [2002] NSWCCA 219
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 219
Decision Date: 24 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jason Proud, the appellant was convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal against the severity of the sentence was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the trial judge had not properly considered the mitigating factors. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the appropriate sentence and whether the sentence was excessive. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing in Australia, including the need for proportionality and the consideration of all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors. The court also had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, which would warrant intervention by the appellate court.

The court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered all the mitigating factors in arriving at the sentence. While the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence, it found that the sentence was indeed excessive. The court exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence, taking into account the need for proportionality and the specific circumstances of the case. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to a term that the court deemed appropriate.

The final orders of the court were that the sentence imposed by the trial judge be quashed, and a new sentence be imposed by the court. The new sentence was to reflect the proper consideration of all mitigating and aggravating factors, and to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. The appellant was to serve the reduced term of imprisonment as determined by the court.

Orders