Legal Research
Cases
R v Jones

R v Jones

Case [2003] NSWCCA 54 7 March 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Jones [2003] NSWCCA 54 revised - 12/05/2003

HEARING DATE(S): 05/02/2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 March 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA at 1; Simpson J at 35; Smart AJ at 36

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence appeal - application of principle of double jeopardy to Crown appeal against sentence - whether sentence manifestly inadequate - whether failure to properly address objective seriousness of offences - whether accumulation or concurrence of sentences considered - whether principle of totality of criminal behaviour applied - whether adequate weight given to principles of deterrence and denunciation

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act NSW 1999 s33

CASES CITED: Regina v AEM Snr; KEM; MM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 304
R v Baird [2002] NSWCCA 460
Bang (Seung) Ho (NSWCCA, 1 September 1992, unreported)
R v Button & Griffen (2002) 54 NSWLR 455
Dinsdale v the Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 1538
R v Fong [2002] NSWCCA 320
R v Kalache (2000) 111 ACrim R 152
R v Kay [2002] NSWCCA 286
Mill v the Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
Pearce v The Queen (1994) 194 CLR 610
R v Sing (2002) 54 NSWLR 31
R v SMR [2002] NSWCCA 258
R v To [2002] NSWCCA 252
R v To [2002] NSWCCA 247

PARTIES :
Regina (Appellant)
Paul Thomas Leslie JONES (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60476/02

COUNSEL: W G Dawe, QC (Crown)
R J Button (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Many Rivers Aboriginal Legal Service (Respondent)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/31/0050

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : English DCJ

CCA 60476/02
DC 02/31/0050

SANTOW JA
SIMPSON J
SMART AJ
7 MARCH 2003

REGINA v Paul Thomas Leslie JONES

Judgment

1 SANTOW JA:

OVERVIEW

R v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114

if the difference between the sentence which was the sentence which should have been imposed is

not great

, the element of double jeopardy may indeed justify dismissal of the appeal …

Bang (Seung) Ho

Regina v AEM Snr; KEM; MM [2002] NSWCCA 58

requires that the appellate court imposed the least sentence that could…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2003] NSWCCA 54
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 54
Decision Date: 7 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones involved the appellant, Jones, who had been convicted and sentenced for multiple criminal offences. The Crown sought an appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the sentence adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offences and whether the principles of double jeopardy, deterrence, and denunciation were properly considered. The court was tasked with examining whether the accumulation or concurrence of sentences was appropriately assessed, and whether the principle of totality of criminal behaviour was correctly applied.

The central legal issues before the court included whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the trial judge had adequately addressed the objective seriousness of the offences. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge had properly applied the principle of totality of criminal behaviour, ensuring that all of Jones's criminal conduct was taken into account in a comprehensive manner. The Crown argued that the sentence failed to sufficiently reflect the gravity of the crimes committed, while the defence maintained that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence.

In delivering its judgment, the court reviewed the sentencing principles applicable to the case. It found that the trial judge had failed to adequately address the objective seriousness of the offences and had not appropriately applied the principle of totality of criminal behaviour. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all relevant factors, including the principles of deterrence and denunciation, were considered in the sentencing process. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and remitted the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted back to the trial court for the purpose of re-sentencing Jones, ensuring that all relevant sentencing principles were properly applied and that the sentence imposed adequately reflected the objective seriousness of the offences committed. The court highlighted the need for the trial judge to consider the accumulation or concurrence of sentences and to give appropriate weight to the principles of deterrence and denunciation in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders