R v Lynch No. Sccrm-02-65

R v LYNCH
[2002] SASC 226
Application for Leave to Appeal against Sentence
(ex tempore)

Gray J In this matter Mr Lynch the applicant has appeared unrepresented seeking leave to appeal from a sentence imposed by the District Court on 12 February 2002.
When sentencing Mr Lynch the learned judge understood that his criminal antecedents included a relevant prior offence of possession of cannabis for sale. This was incorrect. A charge of possession of cannabis for sale was laid but not proceeded with. A charge of simple possession was substituted. It was said that the judge was affected by this extraneous consideration.[1] Mr Lynch has an arguable case that the judge proceeded under a misapprehension of fact.
[1] R v Dinsdale (2000) 202 CLR 321
Mr Lynch raised further matters. He produced documents which suggested that his counsel and the Crown had both misunderstood aspects of a psychological report from Dr Jack White. It is arguable that there were misunderstandings and that those misunderstandings may have affected the judge’s approach.
Mr Lynch placed before me a statement from Centrelink. He said that this was not put before the judge, although it had been made available to his solicitors. The statement suggests that Mr Lynch suffered a nervous breakdown.
Mr Lynch also referred to a newspaper article which reported a case in Melbourne where it was said the son of a judge “walked free”. This was said to be a precedent in regard to the significance of depression at the time of offending. A report of the case will be available to the Court of Criminal Appeal in the ordinary course.
Each of those matters for which I have given leave can adequately be advanced under the first ground of appeal that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Crown has notice of the issues raised and the material said to support each issue. There is no need for the grounds to be amended.
Mr Lynch said that the second ground was drawn by his solicitor. The ground was not pressed on this hearing. I decline to grant leave in regard to this ground.
Finally, Mr Lynch put before me an unsigned statement from a Sergeant McDonald. The statement addressed undercover operations. It was said to support the factual assertion that Mr Lynch was aware that he was dealing with an active undercover agent. The relevance of this material is unclear. It is not a matter that fairly arises. Leave to appeal is refused.
On a number of occasions during the hearing Mr Lynch said that there were further matters he wished to raise later. Despite repeated invitations he did not seek to advance any additional matters.
FOOTNOTE WHICH APPEARS IN THIS JUDGMENT ON PAGE 1
1 R v Dinsdale (2000) 202 CLR 321

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lynch involved an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the District Court on 12 February 2002. The applicant, Mr Lynch, appeared unrepresented and sought leave to appeal from the sentence. The primary issue was whether the sentencing judge had proceeded under a misapprehension of fact, specifically regarding the applicant's criminal antecedents. Additionally, Mr Lynch raised other matters, including alleged misunderstandings by both his counsel and the Crown regarding a psychological report, and the impact of these misunderstandings on the judge’s approach. He also presented a statement from Centrelink suggesting he suffered a nervous breakdown and referred to a newspaper article reporting on a similar case in Melbourne, although these were not considered as additional grounds for appeal.

The court examined the applicant’s claims and determined that the misapprehension of fact regarding the applicant’s criminal antecedents constituted an arguable ground for appeal. The court also considered the potential impact of misunderstandings from the psychological report but found that these issues could be adequately addressed under the primary ground of appeal, which was the manifestly excessive nature of the sentence. The court declined to grant leave on the second ground of appeal as it was not pressed by the applicant. Additionally, the court refused leave to appeal based on an unsigned statement regarding undercover operations, finding it unclear and not relevant to the appeal.

The court's decision was that leave to appeal would be granted for the first ground related to the misapprehension of fact but denied for the second ground and the unsigned statement. The applicant had the opportunity to raise additional matters but did not do so, despite repeated invitations. The court did not see a need to amend the grounds of appeal as the Crown was already aware of the issues and the supporting material.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established