R v Mason - [2000] NSWCCA 207

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Daniel MASON [2000] NSWCCA 207

FILE NUMBER(S):
60349/99

HEARING DATE(S): 29/05/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 29/05/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
Daniel MASON

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 98/31/0501

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Kirkham DCJ

COUNSEL:
D. Frearson - Crown
Ms R. Burgess - Appellant

SOLICITORS:
S. E. O'Connor - Crown
T. A. Murphy - Appellant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Sentencing Act 1989

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
Sentence quashed and in its place applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and 4 months divided between a minimum term of 3 years, to commence on 22 September 1998 and expire on 21 September 2001, and an additional term of 2 years and 4 months to commence on 22 September 2001

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60349/99

SULLY J
ADAMS J

29 May 2000

REGINA v Daniel MASON

JUDGMENT

SULLY J: On 11 February 1999 the present applicant, Mr Daniel Mason, appeared in the District Court before his Honour Judge McGuire of that Court. He was arraigned, and pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault with intent to rob. Such an offence contravenes s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, and it attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of penal servitude, (now imprisonment), for 20 years.
Eventually, on 4 June 1999 the applicant appeared before his Honour Judge Kirkham in the District Court sitting at Gosford. He adhered to his plea of guilty; and his Honour Judge Kirkham heard accordingly evidence and submissions on sentence. His Honour proceeded, at once, and ex tempore to pass sentence.
Because this Court proposes to intervene and to alter in some respects the sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Kirkham, I would think it, for my own part, fair to preface what follows by acknowledging that his Honour, like all Judges of the District Court, particularly those sitting in circuits, was undoubtedly under considerable, and well recognised, pressure to deal expeditiously with all the matters in his list, and to give, therefore, if at all possible, judgment ex tempore.

The Court of Criminal Appeal is very free with the advice and direction and, indeed. correction that it gives to Judges of the District Court in respect of their sentencing; and it is, I think, only fair to acknowledge that in cases of which the present one is a good example, the Judge is operating under considerable pressure as to time and otherwise; and that it is necessary to read the remarks on sentence, and to analyse and if necessary to criticise them, with a sensible regard for the pressures under which they have been produced.
The relevant facts can be shortly stated as follows: On 13 November 1995 in the District Court at Liverpool the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment in respect of an offence of maliciously inflicting actual bodily harm with intent to have sexual intercourse.
He was sentenced to a minimum…

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 Mason

Details

AGLC: R v Mason [2000] NSWCCA 207
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 207
Decision Date: 29 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mason involved the defendant, Mason, who was charged with drug trafficking under the Crimes Act 1900. The dispute centred around the quantum of sentence that should be imposed on Mason for his involvement in the drug trafficking offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Crown sought a significant custodial sentence, arguing that the nature and circumstances of the offence warranted a lengthy period of incarceration. In contrast, Mason's legal representation argued for a more lenient sentence, citing mitigating factors such as Mason's cooperation with law enforcement and his otherwise unblemished criminal record.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Mason, taking into account the statutory guidelines and principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 1989. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The Crown argued that the offence was of a high degree of seriousness and warranted a substantial custodial sentence. On the other hand, Mason's legal counsel submitted that the sentence should reflect the mitigating factors present in this case and that a non-custodial sentence would be more appropriate.

In delivering the judgment, the court first considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, acknowledging the significant quantity of drugs involved and the role Mason played in the trafficking operation. The court then turned to the principles of sentencing, weighing the aggravating factors against the mitigating factors presented. The court found that while the offence was serious, the mitigating factors, including Mason's cooperation with law enforcement and his otherwise clean criminal record, warranted a sentence that was less severe than the Crown had sought. After careful consideration, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary but opted for a term that balanced the seriousness of the offence with the mitigating factors. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment for a period of seven years, with a non-parole period of five years.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a seven-year custodial sentence, with a non-parole period of five years. The court also directed that Mason's criminal record be annotated with the details of the conviction and sentence. Additionally, the court ordered that Mason be subject to supervision and rehabilitation programs during his period of incarceration.

Orders