R v Lyons - [2000] NSWCCA 337

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Lyons [2000] NSWCCA 337

FILE NUMBER(S):
60489/99

HEARING DATE(S): 12/07/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 12/07/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
Brett John LYONS

JUDGMENT OF: James J Bell J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0293

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Armitage DCJ

COUNSEL:
P Hock - Crown
PJD Hamill - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor - Crown
TA Murphy - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Sentencing Act 1989
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

DECISION:
Application for leave to appeal allowed; appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60489/99
JAMES J
BELL J
12 July, 2000

REGINA v Brett John LYONS

JUDGMENT

1 JAMES J: I will ask Justice Bell to give the first judgment.
2 BELL J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentence imposed upon the applicant by his Honour Judge Armitage QC in the Sydney District Court on 16 August 1999. The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of break enter and steal pursuant to s 112(1) Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty in respect of this offence is one of 14 years imprisonment. His Honour imposed a minimum term of 2 years imprisonment to commence on 16 August 1999 and to expire on 15 August 2001. An additional term of 8 months was specified to commence on 16 August 2001.

3 The offence was committed on 7 April 1999. The applicant was arrested on that day and was taken in to custody. He was on parole at the date of the commission of the offence. His parole was subsequently revoked with the revocation expressed to take effect from 7 April 1999.

4 The applicant broke into a domestic home in Naremburn by forcing open a rear door. He stole a quantity of property including a lap-top computer, a VCR, assorted compact discs and some jewellery. The total value of the property stolen was estimated at $5,500. Later that afternoon, it appears that the applicant arranged for his girlfriend to sell the lap-top computer to a Cash Converters outlet in Chatswood. Staff at the shop became suspicious and notified the police. The police attended and observed the applicant in the near vicinity of the shop. He was spoken to and arrested. The applicant made full admissions prior to and during the course of an electronically recorded interview with police. He took the police to Naremburn and identified the premises. The whole of the property taken in the course of the offence was recovered and returned to the owner.

5 The applicant is aged 38 years. He is a single man with a longstanding addiction to heroin and other drugs. The material before his Honour showed that the applicant was a single child who had grown up in a stable family environment. Somewhat inexplicably against this background he had commenced criminal offending at the age of fourteen. His Honour summarised the applicant’s lengthy criminal record in the course of his reasons for…

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 Lyons

Details

AGLC: R v Lyons [2000] NSWCCA 337
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 337
Decision Date: 12 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lyons was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The defendant, Lyons, appealed his sentence, arguing that it was excessive. The court was required to determine whether the original sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate, considering the statutory guidelines and principles of sentencing. The appeal raised questions about the balance between punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentencing, and the discretion afforded to the lower court in sentencing decisions.

The court examined the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1989 and the relevant case law. It considered the nature and circumstances of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also assessed whether the lower court had adequately considered the mitigating and aggravating factors, and whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime committed. The key issue was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or unjust, warranting an intervention by the appellate court.

The court found that while the sentence imposed was severe, it was not so disproportionate as to be manifestly excessive. The lower court had taken into account all relevant factors, including the defendant's criminal history and the need for deterrence. The court held that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime and was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders