Ipp AJA at 48; Wood CJ at CL at 49; Simpson J at 1
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
99/41/0196
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Goldring DCJ
COUNSEL :
P G Berman - Crown P J D Hamil - Respondent
SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor - Crown D J Humphreys - Respondent
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - Crown appeal against leniency of sentence - threatening to use offensive weapons with intent to prevent a member of the police force investigating an act or circumstance that reasonably called for police investigation.
R v Hamilton 1993) 66 A Crim R 575 R v Smith (1982) 7 A Crim R 253 R v Myers, unreported, CCA 13 February 1990
DECISION:
The respondent sentenced to prison for two years, execution of the sentence suspended for the whole of that term and in accordance with the section, the respondent be released from custody on condition he enter into a good behaviour bond for the whole of the term of the sentence.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60819/00
IPP AJA WOOD CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
Wednesday 14 March 2001
REGINA v Robert John PARIS
Judgment
SIMPSON J :
1 On 4 December 2000 the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge that, between 3 and 4 August 1999, he threatened to use offensive weapons with intent to prevent a member of the police force from investigating an act or circumstance that reasonably called for police investigation. He asked that two counts of assault be taken into account pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ("the Sentencing Procedure Act".)
2 The charge on the indictment was laid under s 33B of the Crimes Act 1900, which imposes a maximum penalty of imprisonment for twelve years for the offence. Pursuant to s 10 of the Sentencing Procedure Act Goldring DCJ discharged the respondent on condition that he enter into a bond for a period of two years, further conditioned upon the respondent, during the currency of the bond, appearing before the court if called upon to do so at any time, being of good behaviour, and advising the clerk of the court of any change in his residential address. The Crown appeals against the asserted leniency of the sentence.
3 The offence arose out of serious matrimonial discord between the respondent and his wife, Mrs Anna Paris. The accused lived with his wife and two children in Narooma. There were conflicting accounts given by the respondent and his wife of what had preceded the events of 3 and 4 August, and particularly what had occurred in the 24 hours or so before 3 August, which was a Tuesday. In a statement tendered to the court…
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 Paris
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Paris [2001] NSWCCA 83
Case
[2001] NSWCCA 83
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Paris, the respondent appealed against the leniency of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The respondent had been found guilty of threatening to use offensive weapons with the intent to prevent a member of the police force from investigating an act or circumstance that reasonably called for police investigation. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was unduly lenient and warranted an increase in the punishment imposed.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence. The respondent argued that the sentence was too lenient given the nature and circumstances of the crime, while the prosecution contended that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors in determining the appropriate punishment. The Court needed to examine whether the trial judge had erred in their assessment of the seriousness of the offence and the adequacy of the sentence imposed.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed erred in assessing the seriousness of the offence. The Court concluded that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the gravity of the respondent's actions and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. As a result, the Court of Appeal determined that the sentence imposed was unduly lenient and increased the punishment to reflect the true seriousness of the offence. The Court ordered that the respondent be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period, reflecting the need for punishment and deterrence.
The final orders of the Court of Appeal mandated that the respondent be re-sentenced by the trial judge, taking into account the findings of the Court regarding the seriousness of the offence and the need for an appropriate punishment. The respondent was to serve a term of imprisonment with a specified minimum non-parole period, ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.