Legal Research
Cases
R v Lennon

R v Lennon

Case [2003] SASC 337 2 October 2003

Type to search within this case.

R v LENNON
[2003] SASC 337
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Prior and Vanstone JJ

DOYLE CJ: This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court.
The application for leave to appeal is to be considered on the basis of the principles stated by the High Court in Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295. As a matter of practice this court has consistently applied the approach stated by King CJ in R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212. I refer to what I said on the point in R v Shepperbottom [2001] SASC 31; (2001) 121 A Crim R 69; (2001) 212 LSJS 486 and in R v Elliott [2001] SASC 101; (2001) 121 A Crim R 254. That is the approach which I take in the present case to the application for leave to appeal and, consequent on the grant of leave, to the appeal itself.
Mr Lennon pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawfully and maliciously wounding his defacto wife, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm, contrary to s 21 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The offence attracts a maximum punishment of life imprisonment.
The judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 18 months, and fixed a non-parole period of 10 months. That sentence was imposed on 24 July 2003, about eight weeks before the application for leave to appeal was heard by this court. The judge directed that the sentence commence from 20 December 2002, the date when Mr Lennon was taken into custody. Accordingly, the non-parole period will expire about one month after the application for leave to appeal was heard, and within a few weeks of the court’s decision being given. As will appear, this is of significance in deciding the case.
I should add that the application for leave to appeal was made promptly, having been filed in the registry on 7 August 2003.
Mr Lennon is a 43 year old Aboriginal man. He was born in Port Augusta and appears to have spent his life in country towns.
The circumstances of the offence are these. Mr Lennon was affected by alcohol. An argument developed between him and his defacto wife. According to the judge the relationship between them was not particularly good, arguments between them being quite frequent, especially when Mr Lennon was affected by alcohol.
On the occasion in question Mr Lennon completely lost his temper. He picked up a shovel and struck his defacto a number of times on the head with the blade of the shovel. He caused severe lacerations to her head. A medical report states that the victim had a laceration to her scalp which was about 10 centimetres in length and which was “bone deep”. This was a serious injury. I gather the Mr Lennon struck the victim more than once on the head. He threatened to break her legs. He struck…

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 Lennon

Details

AGLC: R v Lennon [2003] SASC 337
Case: [2003] SASC 337
Decision Date: 2 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lennon, the defendant, Mr Lennon, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court. The District Court had sentenced Mr Lennon to a term of imprisonment, but the Court of Appeal considered the sentence to be inadequate and decided to review and amend it. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the original sentence was appropriate and whether it should be altered. Specifically, the court had to determine if the head sentence and the non-parole period were adequately reflective of the seriousness of the offence.

The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, found that the original sentence did not sufficiently deter Mr Lennon from reoffending. By increasing the head sentence, the Court aimed to ensure that Mr Lennon would face a more substantial term of imprisonment if he reoffended within the non-parole period. The Court noted that a longer non-parole period would serve as a stronger deterrent and potentially encourage Mr Lennon to change his behaviour. The Court of Appeal, therefore, concluded that the original sentence needed to be increased to ensure it served its purpose of deterrence and rehabilitation effectively.

In light of the above considerations, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the sentence imposed by the District Court. The Court imposed a new sentence of imprisonment for four years, with a non-parole period of twenty months. The Court also directed that the new sentence and non-parole period commence from 20 December 2002, correcting an error in the information that had originally stated the offence date as 20 December 2003. The Court suggested that the Director should consider applying to the District Court to correct the date in the information. The Chief Justice and the other judges concurred with the proposed sentence and orders.

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

VANSTONE J

The increase in the head sentence will mean that although Mr Lennon has escaped with a lesser non-parole period that should have been imposed, he is likely to be on parole for a period slightly in excess of two years. Should he offend again within that time, it is likely that he will serve the balance of his term of imprisonment, and hopefully this will provide a very strong inducement to him to change.Conclusion For those reasons I would grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed by the District Court, impose a sentence of imprisonment for four years, and fix a non-parole period of twenty months in relation to the head sentence of four years. I would direct that the head sentence and non-parole period commence from 20 December 2002. Finally, I note that the information particularises the offence as having been committed on 20 December 2003. That is an obvious error. The date should be 20 December 2002. Because of a doubt about this court’s power to amend the information, it has not been amended. The Director should consider whether, by application to the District Court, the appropriate correction can be made. PRIOR J: I agree with the reasons given by the Chief Justice. Leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal allowed and the sentence proposed by him substituted for that imposed in the District Court. I would grant leave to allow the appeal. I agree with the reasons given by the Chief Justice and with the orders he proposes.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: VANSTONE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Lennon [2003] SASC 337

Most Recent Citation

R v Barmby [2007] SASC 354

Cases citing this decision · 14 of 14 shown

Brooks v The King
[2025] SASCA 88 Para 29

…prevalence of domestic violence and the serious nature of its effect on the community.[21] [21] R v McMurtrie (2002) 83 SASR 261 (Gray J); R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295 (Doyle CJ). The approach of the sentencing judge…
Millwood v The King
[2024] SASCA 84 Para 20

…that the community expects the law to protect the vulnerable. Predominantly, it is women who are the victims of domestic violence.[4] [3] R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295. [4] R v Wilkinson (2008) 101 SASR 21; R v Nedza [2013] SASCFC 142, [87] (Nicholson J).…
R v Mark
[2019] SASCFC 48 Para 26

…ate domestic violence, particularly where, as is typical, it is meted out to physically weaker or defenceless children and women. [11] See R v Lennon [2003] SASC 337 at [12] (2003) 86 SASR 295 at 297; R v Wilkinson [2008] SASC 172 at [28], (2008) 101 SASR 21 at 27; R v Postolovski [2016] SASCFC 69 at [50]; R v Nel…
R v NELSON
[2017] SASCFC 40 Para 14

…e domestic violence, particularly where, as is typical, it is meted out to physically weaker or defenceless children and women. [16] See R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295 at [12]; R v Wilkinson (2008) 101 SASR 121 at [28]; [2015] SASCFC 31; R v Postolovski [2016] SASCFC 69 at [50].…
STRAHAN & PP LAWYERS
[2017] FamCAFC 22 Para 7

…ertheless, we accept that remarks from the bench during the course of submissions are not always to be treated merely as “tentative opinions”. In R v Lennon (1984) 38 SASR 356, King CJ said at 360–1: Generally speaking, it is wrong to have regard to what a Judge may say in argument as indicating reasons for his fina…
Craill v Police
[2016] SASC 168 Para 2

…that effect. It is a question not only of actual deterrence but assurance to the public that deterrent penalties are being imposed. [31] R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295 at 297; R v Wiskich (2000) 207 LSJS 431 at 460; Police v Dolan [2010] SASC 341 at [16]; R v M, A G (2013) 116 SASR 219 at 226. [32] Unreported, Supreme…
R v RITTER
[2016] SASCFC 88 Para 38

…s offset by the fact that, as here, there is a pattern of violence within the particular relationship, or on the part of the particular offender. [7] (2003) 86 SASR 295 at [12].…
R v Barnes
[2014] SASCFC 79 Para 20

…e particular offender. Mr Lennon’s record makes it clear that he has not yet learned that violence towards women cannot be accepted. [4] R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295, 297.…
Channel Nine SA Pty Ltd v Police
[2014] SASC 69 Para 6

…re discretionary. I therefore proceed on that basis. [17] G v The Queen (1984) 35 SASR 349 at 351 and 354 per King CJ (Walters and Mohr JJ agreeing); The Queen v Lennon (1984) 38 SASR 356 at 359 per King CJ (Cox and Olsson JJ agreeing); Channel Seven Adelaide Pty Ltd v Draper [2004] SASC 351; (2004) 90 SASR 160 at [51], [70…
Police v Dolan
[2010] SASC 341 Para 16

…. [7] R v Wilkinson (2008) 101 SASR 21 at [28], citing R v Banens (unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, 18 November 1987) at 7-8, R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295 at [12].…
VONSTANKE v Police
[2010] SASC 15 Para 16

…eported, Supreme Court of South Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal, King CJ, Legoe and von Doussa JJ, 18 November 1987 at 7-8 (King CJ)); R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295 at [12]; R v Wilkinson [2008] SASC 172.…
R v Ironside
[2009] SASC 151 Para 6

…he particular offender. Mr Lennon's record makes it clear that he has not yet learned that violence towards women cannot be accepted. [72] R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295. [73] R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295 at [12].…
R v Wilkinson
[2008] SASC 172 Para 28

…accepted. [5] R v Banens (Unreported, Supreme Court of South Australia, King CJ, Legoe and Von Doussa JJ, 18 November 1987) at 7-8. [6] R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295 at [12].…
R v Barmby
[2007] SASC 354 Para 28

…od of 20 months was imposed. It is relevant in Lennon that the defendant pleaded guilty to the charge. [7] R v Collie [2007] SASC 293. [8] R v Lennon (2003) 86 SASR 295.…

View all 14 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 4 of 4 shown

R v Osenkowski
[2005] SASC 142 Para 2

…Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295. As a matter of practice this court has consistently applied the approach stated by King CJ in R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212. I refer to what I said on the point in R v Shepperbottom [2001] SASC 31; (2001) 121 A Crim R 69; (2001) 212 LSJS 486 and in R v Elliott [2001] SASC…
R v Shepperbottom
[2001] SASC 31 Para 2

…as consistently applied the approach stated by King CJ in R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212. I refer to what I said on the point in R v Shepperbottom [2001] SASC 31; (2001) 121 A Crim R 69; (2001) 212 LSJS 486 and in R v Elliott [2001] SASC 101; (2001) 121 A Crim R 254. That is the approach which I take in the pr…
Everett v the Queen
[1994] HCA 49 Para 2

…The application for leave to appeal is to be considered on the basis of the principles stated by the High Court in Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295. As a matter of practice this court has consistently applied the approach stated by King CJ in R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212. I refer to what I said on the poin…
R v Elliott
[2001] SASC 101 Para 2

…30 SASR 212. I refer to what I said on the point in R v Shepperbottom [2001] SASC 31; (2001) 121 A Crim R 69; (2001) 212 LSJS 486 and in R v Elliott [2001] SASC 101; (2001) 121 A Crim R 254. That is the approach which I take in the present case to the application for leave to appeal and, consequent on the grant o…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA)
1 mention (from Para 3)