Legal Research
Cases
R v Leoni

R v Leoni

Case [1999] NSWCCA 14 4 March 1999

Plea of Guilty

Charge Under Specific Statute

Robbery

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v LEONI [1999] NSWCCA 14

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60357 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): 2 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 March 1999

PARTIES :

Ricardo Leoni (appellant)
The Director of Public Prosecutions (respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Abadee J at 1; Barr J at 4; Adams J at 6

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0857

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Delaney DCJ

COUNSEL: Crown: Mr W Dawe QC
Appellant: Mr J Papayanni

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (respondent)
Jeffreys & Associates (appellant)

CATCHWORDS: Plea of guilty; application to withdraw; charge under s 97(1) Crimes ; robbery in company; meaning of 'company'

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935-1976

CASES CITED:
R v Galey (1985) 1 NZLR 230
R v Brougham (1986) 43 SASR 187
R v Cooper (1978) 17 SASR 472
R v Langlands (1932) VLR 450
Mcauliffe (1995) 79 A Crim R 229
R v Howard (1987) 1 NZLR 347
Ferrer Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231 at 233
R v Chiron (1980) 1 NSWLR 218
Ryan (1995) 90 A Crim R 191
Boag (1994) 73 A Crim R 35 at 37
Astor v Hayes (1988) A Crim R 219

DECISION: Application to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused. Reasons given 4 March 1999

1

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
NO. 60357/98

ABADEE J
BARR J
ADAMS J
2 March 1999

REGINA v RICARDO LEONI
JUDGMENT

1 ABADEE J: I will ask Mr Justice Adams to deliver the orders and he will indicate that we will give our reasons in due course.
2 ADAMS J: In respect of the appeal from his Honour’s refusal to allow the plea of guilty to be withdrawn, I propose that the appeal be dismissed. If leave be necessary, I propose that leave be granted and the appeal be dismissed. In respect of the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, I propose that the application be refused. I propose that the Court should deliver its reasons at a later date.
3 ABADEE J: I agree with the orders proposed by Mr Justice Adams.
4 BARR J: I also agree.
5 ABADEE J: The orders of the court are the orders proposed by Mr Justice Adams and the reasons for such orders will be delivered in due course.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
4 MARCH 1999

6 ADAMS J: The appellant appeared before his Honour Judge Shillington on 6 April 1998 at Sydney District Court on a charge of robbery with wounding and, in the alternative, of robbery in company. The Crown accepted a plea of guilty to the second charge in full satisfaction of the indictment. On the occasion that this plea was entered the appellant was represented by Mr Papayanni of counsel. He was remanded to a date to be fixed, bail continued and a pre-sentence report ordered. On 29 May 1998, the appellant appeared for sentencing before his Honour Judge Delaney. However, on that occasion Mr Papayanni sought an adjournment upon the ground that,…

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 Leoni

Details

AGLC: R v Leoni [1999] NSWCCA 14
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 14
Decision Date: 4 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Leoni, was charged with robbery in company under section 97(1) of the Crimes Act. The defendant had initially pleaded guilty, but subsequently sought to withdraw this plea on the basis that he was not in company with another person when committing the robbery. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of the term 'company' as used in the charge of robbery in company. The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted a robbery committed in the company of another person, as required by the statute.

The court considered the legislative history and common law principles regarding the term 'company'. It was noted that the term is not defined in the Crimes Act, and thus the court looked to its ordinary meaning. The court held that the term 'company' does not require physical presence with another person at the time of the offence, but rather implies participation in the commission of the offence with another person. The court found that the defendant's actions were in concert with another individual, who was present and assisting in the commission of the robbery, even if not directly involved in the act of robbing. Therefore, the court concluded that the defendant was indeed in company with another person within the meaning of the statute.

Given the court's interpretation of the term 'company', the defendant's application to withdraw his guilty plea was dismissed. The court upheld the validity of the charge and the plea of guilty remained. As a result, the defendant was convicted of robbery in company and sentenced accordingly.

Orders