Legal Research
Cases
R v Piccin (No 2)

R v Piccin (No 2)

Case [2001] NSWCCA 323 30 August 2001

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Piccin (No 2) [2001] NSWCCA 323

FILE NUMBER(S):
60207/00

HEARING DATE(S): 09/02/01

JUDGMENT DATE: 30/08/2001

PARTIES:
Regina v Kay Piccin

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA James J Hulme J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0607

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Luland DCJ

COUNSEL:
P Segal - Appellant
CK Maxwell QC - Crown

SOLICITORS:
- - Appellant
SE O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS:
Section 10 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - whether order should be made dismissing charge, notwithstanding verdict of guilty - offence not trivial.

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60207/00
GILES JA
JAMES J
HULME J
Thursday 30 August 2001
REGINA v KAY PICCIN (No 2)
JUDGMENT

GILES JA: I agree with James J.
JAMES J: On 9 February 2001 the Court dismissed an appeal by Kay Piccin against her conviction on a charge of maliciously wounding Yangyong Premprasert on 27 April 1999 (Count 1(b) in the indictment which had been presented against Kay Piccin at her trial) and allowed an appeal by her on a charge of stalking Yangyong Premprasert on 5 May 1999 with the intention of causing Yangyong Premprasert to fear personal injury (Count 3(b) in the indictment).
The appeal as filed had been against conviction only. After the Court pronounced its orders an oral application was made in relation to sentence. The precise application, and the basis on which the Court could deal with it, were unclear. The Court directed that “the appellant put on any application which she may be advised to put on in relation to the sentence on Count 1(b)” and the Court gave further directions about the delivering by both parties of written submissions in respect of any such application.
Pursuant to these directions, Kay Piccin (who I will henceforth refer to as “the applicant”) made an application, which is headed “Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence” and both the applicant and the Crown lodged written submissions. The parties have agreed that the applicant’s application can be dealt with by the Court on the basis of the written submissions and that it is unnecessary for there to be a further oral hearing.
To understand why the applicant made the application she did, after this Court had made an order on 9 February 2001 dismissing her appeal against her conviction on the charge of malicious wounding, it is necessary to refer to some of the history of the criminal proceedings against the applicant.
The applicant was tried in the District Court before his Honour Judge Luland and a jury on a number of charges, including the charges of malicious wounding and stalking. The jury found the applicant guilty on the charges of malicious wounding and stalking and acquitted the applicant on the other charges in the indictment.
Judge Luland delivered his remarks on sentence on 13 April 2000. In his remarks his Honour made…

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 Piccin (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Piccin (No 2) [2001] NSWCCA 323
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 323
Decision Date: 30 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Piccin (No 2), the defendant was convicted of an offence under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. The dispute centred on whether an order should be made dismissing the charge against the defendant, despite the jury's verdict of guilty. The court was tasked with determining whether the offence was trivial enough to warrant such an order under section 10 of the Act. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue was whether the offence, as found by the jury, was trivial enough to permit the dismissal of the charge under section 10 of the Act. The court considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, and the impact on the defendant and the community. The court needed to weigh the seriousness of the offence against the potential for a dismissal order to serve justice.

The court found that the offence, while serious, was not so egregious as to preclude a dismissal under section 10 of the Act. The court acknowledged the defendant's remorse, the absence of any prior convictions, and the minimal harm caused by the offence. The court concluded that the dismissal of the charge would serve the interests of justice and would not undermine the authority of the law. Consequently, the court made an order dismissing the charge against the defendant.

The final orders included the dismissal of the charge against the defendant, with the conviction remaining on record, and the defendant being placed on a good behaviour bond for a specified period. The court emphasised the importance of considering the broader implications of sentencing, including the impact on the defendant and the community, and the need to balance these factors with the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

Orders