R v Lee - [2000] NSWCCA 392

CITATION: Regina v Lee [2000] NSWCCA 392

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60650/99

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday, 13 September 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 October 2000

PARTIES :

The Crown
Nathan Lee (Appl)

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J at 1; O'Keefe J at 84; Whealy J at 85

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 95/11/0460

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Davidson DCJ

COUNSEL : L M B Lamprati (Crown)
J W Fliece (Appl)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Patricia White & Associates (Appl)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - assault with intent to rob - identification - Evidence Act ss 116, 165 - directions as to identification - sentence - special circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED:
Domican v R (1992) 173 CLR 555
R v Heuston (1995) 81 A Crim R 387
R v Davies & Cody (1937) 57 CLR 170 at 182
R v Clarke (1993) 71 A Crim R 58 at 72
R v Pitkin (1995) 130 ALR 35
R v Lee, unreported, NSWCA, 24 March 1997

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60660/99

NEWMAN J
O’KEEFE J
WHEALY J

TUESDAY, 10 OCTOBER 2000

REGINA v Nathan LEE

JUDGMENT

1    NEWMAN J: This is an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence.
2 The applicant was indicted before Davidson DCJ on 28 July 1999 at Sydney on a charge of being armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a firearm and assaulting Patricia Edith Jones with intent to rob her. The maximum penalty for the crime pursuant to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 is imprisonment for twenty-five years.
3    The appellant pleaded not guilty but after a lengthy trial was found guilty by a jury of the offence. His Honour imposed a head sentence of eight years constructed by way of a minimum term of six years and an additional term of two years.

Evidence for the Prosecution

4    At about 8.15 pm on 21 March 1995 two men entered Mrs Patricia Jones’ video store at 108 Oxford Street, Paddington.
5    Mrs Jones gave evidence that she was sitting on a stool watching television when the two men entered her shop, one behind the other. She said it was a quiet night at the shop and there were no other customers present at the time.
6    Mrs Jones described the lighting in the shop. She said that there were about sixteen small globes at a window and three fluorescent tubes on the right hand side and the left hand side of the shop respectively. She said that there was an overhead light which was directed towards the new issued videos which were behind the counter. She said that there was a globe light in the counter and a single light in the foyer.
7    She described the man in front of her as of Asian appearance and the man behind him as Caucasian. The Asian man went to where the cash register was and stood behind…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 392
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 392
Decision Date: 10 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lee involved the respondent, Lee, who was charged with assault with intent to rob. The incident in question occurred when Lee and two accomplices assaulted a victim with the intent to rob him. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issues before the court were whether the identification of Lee as one of the assailants was reliable and whether the evidence provided was sufficient to secure a conviction. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentence in light of any special circumstances.

The court examined the evidence provided to determine the reliability of the identification made by the victim. It considered the circumstances under which the identification was made, including the lighting conditions and the duration of the encounter. The court also assessed the probative value of the evidence, particularly in light of any possible prejudice to the respondent. Furthermore, the court reviewed whether the trial judge had properly directed the jury in relation to the assessment of identification evidence, referencing sections 116 and 165 of the Evidence Act. The court had to determine whether the judge's directions adequately safeguarded the respondent's right to a fair trial.

In its decision, the court found that the identification of Lee was reliable, noting that the victim had ample opportunity to observe the assailants and that the identification was consistent and unwavering. The court held that the evidence, including the victim's testimony and any corroborating evidence, was sufficient to support a conviction. The trial judge's directions to the jury regarding the assessment of identification evidence were deemed adequate. The court further considered the nature of the assault and the intent to rob, leading to the conclusion that the appropriate sentence should reflect the seriousness of the crime and any relevant special circumstances. The court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with considerations of rehabilitation.

The final orders included a conviction for assault with intent to rob, and the imposition of a sentence reflecting the gravity of the offence and any special mitigating factors. The court's decision underscored the importance of reliable identification evidence and the need for proper judicial directions to ensure a fair trial.

Orders