R v Jeffries

Case [2004] SASC 188

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

R v JEFFRIES

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Perry and The Honourable Justice Mullighan)

2 July 2004

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - CONCURRENT, CUMULATIVE AND ADDITIONAL SENTENCES, SENTENCES ON ESCAPE AND COMMENCEMENT OF SENTENCE

The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to multiple offences committed over a period of time, including unlawful possession, larceny of a motor vehicle and possessing and taking part in the production of methylamphetamines - the sentencing judge imposed a single sentence of 5 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years - he revoked the suspension of a previously suspended sentence of 10 months, which he then included in the single sentence imposed under s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 - held on appeal that the activated sentence of 10 months could not be merged into a single sentence under s 18A, but should have been ordered to be served discretely - the remaining charges could then be made the subject of a single sentence to be served cumulatively upon the 10 months sentence - appeal allowed to restructure the sentences accordingly - otherwise appeal dismissed.

Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 s 18A and s 58(4)(a), referred to.
R v Place (2001-2002) 81 SASR 395; R v McInerney (1986) 42 SASR 111; R v Gibbs [2004] SASC 187, 2 July 2004, considered.

R v JEFFRIES
[2004] SASC 188

Court of Criminal Appeal:          Doyle CJ, Perry and Mullighan JJ

  1. DOYLE CJ:          I agree with the orders proposed by Perry J, and with the reasons that he has given for making those orders.  There is nothing that I wish to add.

  2. Accordingly, I would order as follows:

  3. That the appeal against sentence be allowed.

  4. That the sentence imposed by the District Court be set aside.

  5. That the District Court order revoking the order suspending the sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates Court sitting at Elizabeth be confirmed.

  6. That in respect of the offences for which the appellant was liable to be sentenced by the District Court, and in respect of the offences to which the appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court, a single sentence of imprisonment be imposed pursuant to s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act, the sentence of imprisonment to be for a term of four years eight months, to be served cumulatively on the sentence of imprisonment for 10 months.

  7. That an order be made that the appellant be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of four years, from 14 October 2003.

  8. That in relation to the combined head sentences of 10 months’ imprisonment and four years eight months’ imprisonment, there be fixed a non-parole period of three years.

  9. That the sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment and the non-parole period be taken to have commenced…

Continue reading R v Jeffries

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Jeffries [2004] SASC 188
Case
[2004] SASC 188
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, R v Jeffries, pleaded guilty to multiple offences in the District Court, which included unlawful possession, larceny of a motor vehicle, and involvement in the production of methylamphetamines. The court imposed a single sentence of 5 years and 6 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The sentencing judge also revoked a previously suspended sentence of 10 months, which was then incorporated into the single sentence imposed under section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. The appellant appealed against the sentencing decision, arguing that the activated sentence of 10 months could not be merged into the single sentence under section 18A but should instead be ordered to be served separately. The appeal was heard by the court, which needed to determine whether the sentences imposed were lawful and appropriate.

The court identified that the legal issue at hand was whether the activated sentence of 10 months could be merged into the single sentence imposed under section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988. The court held that the activated sentence of 10 months could not be merged into the single sentence and should instead be ordered to be served separately. The court also considered the significance of prior and subsequent offending, as well as the need for personal deterrence given the persistence of the offending. The court agreed with the observations made in R v Place (2002) 81 SASR 395 and The Queen v McInerney (1986) 42 SASR 111 regarding the importance of considering prior and subsequent offending when imposing sentences.

The appeal was allowed for the limited purpose of restructuring the sentences accordingly. The court directed that the appellant should serve the sentence of 10 months imprisonment, being the suspended sentence imposed on 26 June 2000 in the Magistrates Court, separately from the remaining charges. Pursuant to section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act, the court imposed a sentence of 4 years and 8 months on all other charges, to be served cumulatively on the sentence of 10 months imprisonment. This would give an overall head sentence which is the same as the sentence under appeal. The non-parole period of 3 years was not altered. The court agreed with the sentence suggested by Perry J and allowed the appeal for the limited purpose proposed by him. The observations made in R v Place and The Queen v McInerney were considered, and the court found that the appellant's sentence was appropriate given the persistence of the offending.

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

PERRY J MULLIGHAN J
The persistence of the offending means that it is necessary to give weight to the need for personal deterrence.Conclusion I would allow the appeal for the limited purpose of restructuring the head sentence of 5 years and 6 months. In the first place, the appellant should be directed to serve the sentence of 10 months imprisonment, being the suspended sentence imposed on 26 June 2000 in the Magistrates Court. Separately, pursuant to s 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act, I would impose a sentence of 4 years and 8 months on all other charges, to be served cumulatively on the sentence of 10 months imprisonment. This would give an overall head sentence which is the same as the sentence under appeal. I would not interfere with the non-parole period of 3 years. I agree that the appeal should be allowed for the reasons given by Perry J for the limited purpose proposed by him and I agree with the sentence which he suggests. I merely wish to mention one matter. The observations in R v Place (2002) 81 SASR 395 at 432 that, generally speaking, there is justification for imposing greater penalties for later offences where a number of offences are committed over a period of time must be considered along with the observations of King CJ in The Queen v McInerney (1986) 42 SASR 111 at 113 as to the significance of prior offending and subsequent offending. As he observed, “A person is not to be punished, or punished again, for crimes other than the crime for which the sentence is being passed”. He went on to mention the significance of prior and subsequent offending. It is unnecessary for present purposes to set out his observations. I merely say that I respectfully agree with them. I would not have imposed increasing sentences of imprisonment for the unlawful possession offences but it cannot be said that the learned Judge erred in principle in doing so.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: PERRY J, MULLIGHAN J

Full text does not contain this section.