R v Laws

Case [2000] NSWSC 885 5 September 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 116 A Crim R 70

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: R v Laws [2000] NSWSC 885

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70025/00

HEARING DATE(S): 5/9/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 5 September 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Richard John Sinclair Laws

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJatCL at 1

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0086

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : M. Tedeschi QC
W. Terracini SC with W. Muddle

SOLICITORS: DPP
Hunt & Hunt

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen months, the execution of which is to be suspended for that period, upon condition of entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for a like period of fifteen months.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

WOOD CJ at CL

TUESDAY 5 SEPTEMBER 2000

70025/00 - REGINA V RICHARD JOHN SINCLAIR LAWS
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Mr. Laws has been convicted, following a trial by jury, of the offence of soliciting information from a former juror for the purpose of obtaining information on the deliberations of the jury of which she had been a member. The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for seven years (S68A Jury Act 1977). 2 The offence occurred in the following circumstances. The former juror, who was given the pseudonym Mrs Hansen, served as a juror on the trial of Seldon Robinson and Andrew Ly between 14 July and 5 August 1998. On 5 August 1998, after deliberating for three days, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in relation to the charge of murder of Angelo Cusumano that had been preferred against them. 3 Mrs. Hansen was deeply upset by the verdict, since it was one in which she did not believe and in which she had joined only because she felt that she had been brow beaten to the point where she could not hold out any longer. That night, after returning home, she telephoned the widow of Mr. Cusamano to explain that she had beseeched the jury not to return any verdict, upon the basis that they were unable to agree. She expressed her regret for the outcome and indicated that, in her view, justice had not been done. 4 The fact of this telephone conversation became known to elements of the media, and it was reported in a front page story dealing with the trial, in the Daily Telegraph of 6 August. An editorial, which called for an inquiry, appeared in the same newspaper. By that time there had already been a good deal of concern expressed in relation to the acquittal of the two young men, who had been involved in an armed robbery in company with a third man, in the course of which Mr Cusamano had been shot by that third man. Such was the controversy and concern attaching, that Alan Jones spoke to Mrs. Cusumano during his breakfast programme on Radio Station 2UE. There was a brief mention in this interview, which was entirely permissible…

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 Laws

Details

AGLC: R v Laws [2000] NSWSC 885
Case: [2000] NSWSC 885
Decision Date: 5 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Laws, the defendant, Richard John Sinclair Laws, was convicted of soliciting information from a former juror for the purpose of obtaining information on the deliberations of the jury of which she had been a member. The offence occurred when Laws interviewed a juror from the trial of Seldon Robinson and Andrew Ly, who had been acquitted of the murder of Angelo Cusumano. Laws conducted the interview on his radio show, despite knowing that it was illegal to discuss jury deliberations. The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment for seven years, as outlined in Section 68A of the Jury Act 1977.

The legal issues the court had to decide included whether Laws had genuinely believed that his actions were lawful and whether his ignorance of the law could be accepted as a defence. Additionally, the court needed to consider the seriousness of the offence and the appropriate punishment for Laws, taking into account his high profile and long-standing career in the media industry.

The court found that Laws had genuinely believed that his actions were lawful due to his ignorance of the law, but nevertheless considered his ignorance to be a serious and unprofessional breach. The court highlighted the importance of protecting the sanctity of jury deliberations and the secrecy surrounding them. The court also noted that Laws' high profile and large radio audience meant that his actions had the potential to attract public criticism and scrutiny of the jurors involved in the trial.

In deciding the appropriate punishment, the court considered various sentencing options, including fines, community service, and various forms of detention. Ultimately, the court decided to sentence Laws to imprisonment for fifteen months, with the execution of the sentence being suspended on the condition that he enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a like period of fifteen months. This decision aimed to convey the seriousness of the offence while also providing Laws with an opportunity to avoid serving the sentence by displaying good behaviour.

The final orders of the court were that Richard John Sinclair Laws be sentenced to imprisonment for fifteen months, with the execution of the sentence being suspended upon the condition that he enter into a bond to be of good behaviour for a like period of fifteen months. The bond was to include the conditions stipulated in Section 95 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Orders