R v Lee - [2003] NSWCCA 391

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Lee [2003] NSWCCA 391 revised - 18/12/2003

FILE NUMBER(S):
60296/03

HEARING DATE(S): 15/12/03

JUDGMENT DATE: 18/12/2003

PARTIES:
Regina
Todd Andrew Lee

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/31/0341

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL:
Ms D Woodburne (Crown)
H Dhanji (Appl)

SOLICITORS:
C K Smith(Crown)
K Longin - Murphys Lawyers (Appl)

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Practice & Procedure
applicant mentally unwell but not insane
deterrence
whether sentence gave proper weight to mental state

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal allowed
Sentence imposed by Kinchington DCJ on 13/12/02 quashed, in lieu thereof the applicant resentenced to 5 years imprisonment to commence 9/4/02 and expire 8/4/07, with a non parole period of 2 1/2 years to commence 9/4/02 and expire 8/10/04. Eligible for release on parole on 9/10/04.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60296/03
BARR J
KIRBY J
Thursday 18 December 2003

REGINA v Todd Andrew LEE

Judgment

BARR J: I agree with Kirby J.
KIRBY J: Todd Andrew Lee (the applicant) seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by Kinchington DCJ at the Tamworth District Court on 13 December 2002. Mr Lee pleaded guilty to the offence of Detaining Persons with an Intent to Obtain an Advantage, the advantage being the avoidance of apprehension. That is an offence under s86(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (the Act). The maximum penalty is 14 years imprisonment. At the time of entering his plea, Mr Lee asked his Honour to take account of five further offences on a Form 1. They were all offences committed at the same time as the principal offence. The offences were:

That he was armed with a Stanley knife, scissors and items he represented as explosives, with the intent of committing an indictable offence, namely, intimidating others (contrary to s33B(1) of the Act).
That he remained in a building, namely a school classroom, with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely, larceny, contrary to s114(1)(d) of the Act.
That he assaulted three school children, being three counts under s61 of the Act.

Taking account of the matters on the Form 1, his Honour imposed a sentence of 6 1/2 years with a non parole period of 3 1/2 years, the sentence to date from his arrest on 9 April 2002.
The Offences
The applicant was born on 22 February 1971. At the time of these offences he was 31 years old. He lived with his parents at Kootingal, a small town outside Tamworth. He was unemployed. On 9 April 2002 he decided to visit his brother in Tamworth. He packed a bag, expecting that he may stay overnight. He then walked towards the local primary school, hoping to be given a lift to Tamworth on the school bus.
Mr Lee was familiar with the layout of the school. At one time he had been employed painting the school. When he got…

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 Lee

Details

AGLC: R v Lee [2003] NSWCCA 391
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 391
Decision Date: 18 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lee involved an applicant who was found guilty of a crime but was also determined to be mentally unwell at the time of the offence. The applicant was not deemed to be insane, but his mental state was considered a mitigating factor. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the sentence imposed adequately took into account the applicant's mental condition. The court was tasked with assessing whether the sentence was appropriate given the applicant's mental state and whether the need for deterrence was properly balanced with the mitigating circumstances of his mental illness.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant adequately reflected his mental state at the time of the offence. The court had to weigh the principles of deterrence and punishment against the mitigating factor of the applicant's mental health. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the sentence was proportionate to the offence, taking into consideration the applicant's mental condition and whether it warranted a lesser penalty. The court was also required to consider the broader implications of sentencing in cases involving mentally unwell individuals who are not deemed insane.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the importance of considering the mental state of the offender in the sentencing process. The court recognised that while deterrence and punishment are key objectives of sentencing, these must be balanced against the individual circumstances of the offender. The court found that the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the applicant's mental state, which significantly impaired his ability to understand the consequences of his actions. The court concluded that a more lenient sentence was warranted to account for the applicant's mental condition, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate and just. The court ultimately determined that the original sentence was too severe and did not properly weigh the mitigating factor of the applicant's mental illness.

The court ordered a retrial of the sentencing phase, directing that the sentence be reconsidered with a focus on the applicant's mental state at the time of the offence. The court instructed the sentencing authority to impose a sentence that appropriately balanced the need for deterrence with the mitigating circumstances of the applicant's mental illness. The court's decision underscored the necessity for courts to carefully consider the mental health of offenders when determining appropriate sentences, ensuring that justice is served in a manner that is both fair and compassionate.

Orders