R v Lord - [2001] NSWCCA 533

CITATION: Regina v Luke Thomas Lord [2001] NSWCCA 533 revised - 11/02/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60657/01

HEARING DATE(S): 4 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 December 2001

PARTIES :

Regina - Appellant - Crown
Luke Thomas Lord - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA at 1; Hidden J at 26; Howie J at 29

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/31/0238

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : English DCJ

COUNSEL : W G Dawe QC - Appellant - Crown
M Thangarai - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitors Office - Appellant - Crown
Legal Aid Commission - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal on sentence - aggravated break and enter - assault - conditional bond - whether sentence manifestly inadequate - co-offender - excellent prospects rehabilitation - whether extenuating circumstances - double jeopardy - ND

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
n/a

DECISION: See paras 25 and 34 for orders

- 9 -IN THE SUPREME COURT

60657/01

STEIN JA
HIDDEN J
HOWIE J

Tuesday, 4 December 2001

REGINA v Luke Thomas LORD

Judgment

1 STEIN JA: This is a Crown appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions under s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, from a sentence imposed by Judge English in the District Court on Luke Thomas Lord on 24 September 2001.

2 The respondent pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated break and enter with intent pursuant to s 113(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. Her Honour also took into account an associated charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Without proceeding to conviction her Honour ordered the respondent to enter into a conditional bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months. The Director of Public Prosecutions submits that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

3 Briefly stated the facts are that during the afternoon of 3 May 2001 the respondent, together with a young person, went to the home of a 71 year old woman at Killarney Vale. The young person forced the locked front wire door and he and the respondent entered the house. Both then searched for money or jewellery to steal. The victim then entered the room where they were searching. The offenders grabbed a tapestry carry bag hanging on the door and ran from the room. It is not clear on the material before us or before the trial judge as to which offender grabbed the carry bag.

4 At this point in time the victim was standing in the hallway partially obstructing the exit point. The respondent and the young person forced their way past her in a bid to make good their escape. This caused the victim to fall heavily onto the tiled floor of the hallway and injure herself. Both offenders ran out of the house and decamped.

5 The young person was arrested a short time later and identified the respondent as an offender. Police arrested the respondent at his home.…

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 Lord

Details

AGLC: R v Lord [2001] NSWCCA 533
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 533
Decision Date: 4 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on a defendant, Lord, who had been found guilty of aggravated break and enter and assault. The matter was heard in the court of appeal. The Crown sought to argue that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that it failed to reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. The appeal centred on whether the original sentence was too lenient given the nature of the offences and the need for deterrence and retribution.

The court was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether it was appropriate to impose a more severe penalty. Additionally, the court had to consider the prospects for the defendant's rehabilitation, the extenuating circumstances of the case, and the potential impact of a harsher sentence on the defendant's ability to reintegrate into society. The court also needed to examine the principle of double jeopardy and whether it applied to preclude a more severe sentence being imposed. The Crown argued that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes, while the defence maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court emphasised the gravity of the crimes, which involved a significant breach of personal security and property. The court considered the co-offender's role and the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, which were deemed to be excellent. The court noted that while there were extenuating circumstances, these did not justify the leniency of the original sentence. The appeal was allowed, and a more severe sentence was imposed, taking into account the need for deterrence and the protection of the community.

The final orders of the court involved the imposition of a more severe sentence on the defendant, reflecting the gravity of the crimes and the need for adequate punishment. The court also considered the impact of the new sentence on the defendant's ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious crimes are commensurate with the harm caused and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

Orders