R v Leroy Cummings
[2009] NSWDC 286
•8 October 2009
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT COURT
CITATION:
R v Leroy CUMMINGS [2009] NSWDC 286
FILE NUMBER(S):
DC 2009/11/0159
HEARING DATE(S):
8 October 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
8 October 2009
PARTIES:
The Crown
Leroy Cummings
JUDGMENT OF:
Berman SC DCJ
COUNSEL:
T Macintosh - The Crown
A Barber - The Accused
SOLICITORS:
NSW DPP
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law
Judgment
Plea of guilt not accepted
Not genuinely acknowledging guilt
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
TEXTS CITED:
DECISION:
Plea of guilty rejected
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: Leroy Cummins pleaded guilty at an earlier stage to two offences, one being assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the other being stealing from a person. The matter has proceeded today before me and an issue has arisen as to whether I should accept Mr Cummins’ plea to the second of those matters, that is the stealing from a person matter.
I cannot accept a plea of guilty which I do not consider to be a genuine acknowledgement of guilt. Usually the fact of the plea itself is sufficient to demonstrate an acknowledgement of guilt and an acceptance that the elements of the offence are satisfied. However the accused gave evidence, before me today, and the question which has arisen in my mind is whether he does admit one of the elements of the offence of stealing from a person, that is an intention to steal the property particularised in the indictment.
I accept that it is in Mr Cummins’ interest to have the matter dealt with to finality as quickly as possible. He has put, through his counsel, a strong subjective case, one which would have a considerable effect upon not only the length of the sentence that I would impose upon Mr Cummins but also the nature of the sentence.
However it is a matter of fundamental legal principle that a person who is not genuinely acknowledging his guilt should not be sentenced on the basis of a convenient plea of guilty.
In this case the offender gave evidence as to his intention or his purpose in picking up the items. I accept that there is a difference between him knowing what he was thinking at the time and what he in fact intended especially given the substantial level of intoxication that was influencing him at the time. Thus, it may be that he could say I have no memory of intending to steal the items but I accept that I must have had that intention. He does not however say that. He says that he does not know what he meant to do when he picked up the items. He does not accept, as far as I understand his evidence, that he did intend to steal the property.
It is a matter of great regret that this will require that the matter be listed for a trial. I wish, however, to say something else. It may well be that upon further reflection Mr Cummins is prepared to admit that from what he knows about the circumstances of that day he accepts that he intended to steal the items. If so of course then he is entitled to plead guilty at a later date and entitled to have the appropriate discount for pleading guilty applied to his sentence.
The order I am making today is not intended at all to preclude Mr Cummins later pleading guilty. Of course it would be better if further proceedings were taken before a different judge rather than me.
The matter will be listed in court 3.1 next Friday 16 October 2009.
**********
LAST UPDATED:
9 November 2009
0
0
0