R v LRS - [2001] NSWCCA 338

CITATION: Regina v LRS [2001] NSWCCA 338 revised - 11/09/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60346/01

HEARING DATE(S): 22 August 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 August 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v LRS

JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 1; Sully J at 58; Smart AJ at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/31/0189

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Nader DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown - E.A. Wilkins
Respondent - P.M. Strickland

SOLICITORS: Crown - S.E. O'Connor
Respondent - D.J. Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION: Crown appeal against sentence allowed. See Schedule to judgment.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60346/01
PRIESTLEY JA
SULLY J
SMART AJ

Wednesday, 22 August 2001

REGINA v LRS

Judgment

1 PRIESTLEY JA: The Court is in a position to deliver judgment straight away. The opinions of the Court are divided. I mention that so that you do not have to wait until everybody has spoken to find out what the result is. The result will be that the appeal will be upheld and there will be a suspended sentence imposed and the details of that will be given later.

2 I will ask Smart AJ to give his reasons first.

: The Director of Public Prosecutions appeals against a sentence imposed by Nader ADCJ at East Maitland District Court whereby LRS was placed on a good behaviour bond for three years on a charge of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The Director contends that the sentence was inadequate.

4 The facts have to be gleaned principally from the materials tendered by the Crown, including the respondent's record of interview with the police, his two police statements, a statement of facts prepared by the Crown, which was infelicitously worded and some other statements and reports. No statement from the victim of the offence was tendered. It would have exposed him to cross-examination and possibly to self-incrimination.

5 In his remarks upon sentence the judge made some comments as to what he thought probably happened. Some of these involve a degree of surmise. No oral evidence was called. The judge reserved his decision after receiving the documentary materials and hearing addresses. He gave the question of sentence anxious consideration over the ensuing eleven days. It was not an easy issue to resolve.

6 At the time of the offence the respondent was a juvenile, having been born on 20 March 1982. The complainant, on the other hand, was a mature man, having been born on 18 January 1957. He was thus aged forty-three at the time of the offence. The complainant lived "just around the corner" from the respondent's house.

7 The respondent and his de facto wife first met the complainant at the wine bar at Beresfield about six months prior to the offence. They all went back to the complainant's house and spent some time together drinking and chatting. Thereafter, they saw him in the street and…

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 LRS

Details

AGLC: R v LRS [2001] NSWCCA 338
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 338
Decision Date: 22 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v LRS, the appeal was brought by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, LRS, who had been found guilty of multiple counts of armed robbery. The appeal centred on the argument that the sentence was inadequate given the seriousness of the crimes committed. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Victoria. The Crown argued that the trial judge had not sufficiently taken into account the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles of sentencing for serious criminal offences and the appropriate weight to be given to factors such as the culpability of the offender, the harm caused to victims, and the need for general deterrence. The Crown contended that the sentence of imprisonment imposed on LRS did not adequately reflect the gravity of the armed robberies, which involved violence and the use of firearms. The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether there was an error in the application of sentencing principles.

The court, in its judgement, found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was indeed inadequate in light of the seriousness of the offences. The court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the crimes and to serve purposes such as deterrence and denunciation. The appellate court determined that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered the impact of the crimes on the victims and the need for a sentence that would adequately reflect the community's condemnation of such serious offences. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the trial court for re-sentencing.

The final orders included a direction for the trial court to re-sentence LRS, taking into account the appropriate weight to be given to the principles of deterrence and denunciation. The court also provided guidelines for the trial judge to consider in determining an appropriate sentence, ensuring that it reflected the seriousness of the armed robberies and the need to protect the community.

Orders