Criminal Law and Procedure - Sentence - Adjournment under s 11 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act unjustified - failure of sentencing judge to find facts before making order - effect of statements by offender in pre-sentence report.
1 Levine J: I agree with the orders proposed by Howie J and his reasons therefore.
2 Hidden J: I agree with Howie J.
3 Howie J: This is a Crown appeal against what is asserted to be the inadequacy of a sentence imposed by Judge Coorey upon the respondent when he appeared before his Honour on 26 April 2002 for sentence on a charge of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. On that day his Honour adjourned the proceedings to 29 November 2002 and granted bail to the respondent on certain conditions. It is clear that this order was made under s 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.
4 It has been recently held by this Court that an order made under s 11 could be the subject of an appeal by the Crown to this Court under s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act, even though, as was the situation in that case, no date had been fixed for the further hearing of the matter: R v Trindall[2002] NSWCCA 364.
5 The Crown contends that, in light of the seriousness of the offence for which the respondent was to be sentenced and because it was inevitable that a full-time custodial sentence had to be imposed upon him, it was outside the legitimate exercise of his Honour’s discretion to make an order under s 11 adjourning the sentencing proceedings. Before considering the merits of this contention, it is necessary to refer briefly to the history of the matter.
The sentencing proceedings so far
6…
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 Palu
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Palu [2002] NSWCCA 381
Case
[2002] NSWCCA 381
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Palu, the defendant faced sentencing after a conviction for a serious criminal offence. The dispute arose over the sentencing judge's decision to adjourn sentencing under section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, which permits such adjournments in certain circumstances. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with determining whether this adjournment was justified, given the defendant's statements in the pre-sentence report.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge properly exercised their discretion in adjourning the sentencing hearing. The court had to consider whether the judge adequately found the necessary facts to justify such an adjournment, particularly in light of the defendant's statements included in the pre-sentence report. The court's task was to assess whether the judge's decision to adjourn was procedurally correct and whether the defendant's statements warranted the adjournment.
The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentencing judge did not properly exercise their discretion in adjourning the sentencing hearing. The judge failed to adequately find the facts required to justify the adjournment under section 11 of the Act. The statements made by the defendant in the pre-sentence report did not, in the court's view, provide sufficient grounds for the adjournment. The court emphasised the importance of a clear and reasoned finding of facts by the sentencing judge before making an order to adjourn sentencing. Consequently, the adjournment was deemed unjustified, and the matter was remitted to a different sentencing judge for reconsideration.
The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal were that the adjournment of sentencing was quashed and the matter was to be remitted to a different sentencing judge for reconsideration. The court made it clear that the original sentencing judge should not proceed with the case, ensuring that the process was conducted with due regard to the principles of sentencing and the requirements of the relevant legislation.