R v Leslie John Sullivan - [2017] NSWDC 219

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Leslie John Sullivan [2017] NSWDC 219
Hearing dates: 1 March 2017
Date of orders: 01 March 2017
Decision date: 01 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of one (1) year and ten (10) months commencing from 14 June 2016 and expiring on 13 April 2018, and a balance of term of one (1) year and five (5) months. That is a total effective sentence of three (3) years and three (3) months. Eligible to be released to parole on 13 April 2018.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Indigenous offender – disadvantaged background – cognitive impairment
Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1999
Cases Cited: John Hunter v R [2011] NSWCCA 141
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Leslie John Sullivan
Representation: Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions
Aboriginal Legal Service

File Number(s): 2016/177936

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender, Mr Leslie John Sullivan, appears today for sentence in respect of three offences. The first is an offence of aggravated enter dwelling with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, being larceny. The second is an offence of stealing property from a dwelling house. The third offence, which is on a certificate pursuant to s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is an offence of indecent assault. All offences arise out of the same incident.
The seriousness of each of the offences is reflected in the maximum penalties which have been prescribed for them by Parliament. In the case of the offence of aggravated enter dwelling Parliament has prescribed a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. For the offence of stealing from a dwelling house, a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment is prescribed. In respect of the offence of indecent assault, when dealt with on indictment it carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment but of course I am dealing with it by reference to the summary jurisdictional limit of two years.
Much of what follows is taken from the careful written submissions handed up on behalf of the offender and I wish to record the Court's gratitude for being provided with such careful and fair submissions. It makes the work of the Court, particularly in sittings like these, considerably easier when given that type of assistance. Equally fairly and helpfully, the Crown has conceded in most respects the appropriateness and fairness of the submissions offered on behalf of the offender and I take that into account in the remarks that follow.
In respect of the objective seriousness of the offending, it was put on behalf of Mr Sullivan that there exists one relevant circumstance of aggravation, that being that Mr Sullivan knew that the victim was present in her home. That that is so is plain from the statement of agreed facts tendered with the crown materials. Of course, as was submitted on behalf of the offender, the number and nature of aggravating features present are relevant to an assessment of…

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 Leslie John Sullivan

Details

AGLC: R v Leslie John Sullivan [2017] NSWDC 219
Case: [2017] NSWDC 219
Decision Date: 01 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Leslie John Sullivan, was convicted of drug-related offences and appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was required to consider the appropriate sentence for an Indigenous offender with a disadvantaged background and cognitive impairment. The appeal centred on whether the sentence was excessive and whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the appellant's background and mitigating factors. The court examined the principles of sentencing, the specific circumstances of the offence, and the appellant's personal background in its analysis.

The court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the mitigating factors but noted that the sentence was harsh. The court held that while the appellant's background and cognitive impairment were significant, they did not outweigh the seriousness of the offence. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that balanced the principles of general and specific deterrence, the need for denunciation, and the rehabilitation of the offender. It concluded that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case.

After reviewing the entire sentencing process and considering the mitigating factors, the court determined that the sentence should be reduced. The court reduced the non-parole period from two years and three months to one year and ten months, and adjusted the balance of term to one year and five months. This resulted in an aggregate sentence of three years and three months, with eligibility for parole on 13 April 2018. The court's decision recognised the need for a sentence that appropriately addressed the appellant's background while also serving the broader interests of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of one (1) year and ten (10) months commencing from 14 June 2016 and expiring on 13 April 2018, and a balance of term of one (1) year and five (5) months. That is a total effective sentence of three (3) years and three (3) months. Eligible to be released to parole on 13 April 2018.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Leslie John Sullivan [2017] NSWDC 219
Hearing dates:	1 March 2017
Date of orders:	01 March 2017
Decision date:	01 March 2017
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Whitford SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence consisting of a non-parole period of one (1) year and ten (10) months commencing from 14 June 2016 and expiring on 13 April 2018, and a balance of term of one (1) year and five (5) months. That is a total effective sentence of three (3) years and three (3) months. Eligible to be released to parole on 13 April 2018.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Indigenous offender – disadvantaged background – cognitive impairment
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1999
Cases Cited:	John Hunter v R [2011] NSWCCA 141
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Leslie John Sullivan
Representation:	Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Aboriginal Legal Service
File Number(s):	2016/177936