R v PL

Case [2000] NSWSC 918 11 August 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v PL [2000] NSWSC 918 revised - 24/10/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70210/99

HEARING DATE(S): 04/08/00
11/08/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 11 August 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
PL

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J at 1

COUNSEL : Ms L Flannery- Young Person

SOLICITORS: Mr M Stollery- Crown

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - Robbery in company - Juvenile

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: R v R (1993) 71 A Crim R 95.
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603.

DECISION: 1. The young person is to be released on probation for two years subject to the following conditions: (a) that the young person subject himself to the guidance of the Juvenile Justice Department, and obey that department's reasonable guidance and directions; (b) that the young person is to reside with his mother, and in the event of his mother having to go overseas, that he be placed in the care of another responsible adult person nominated by his mother; (c) that the young person is to continue his present schooling or such other schooling as may be considered appropriate depending on his state of development; and (d) that the young person is not to commit any further criminal offences, and is to keep the peace.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

DOWD J

Friday 11th August 2000
N70210/99

REGINA v PL

SENTENCE

1    HIS HONOUR: This matter, being heard under the provisions of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s11 of that Act applies, which relates to the non-publication of the name, not only of the young person before the Court, but other young people. People who are not involved in the proceedings, with the exception of course of members of the press, should not remain in the Court.
2    On 30 April 1999, the young person, who I shall refer to by his initials, PL, was committed to this Court together with his co-accused, for trial on a number of serious offences, including murder and robbery in company. A trial date was fixed for 7 August 2000, but was vacated after PL indicated that he wished to change his plea to guilty of robbery in company.
3 On 22 June 2000, the Crown presented an indictment charging PL with one count of robbery in company, contrary to s99(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Act”).
4    On 11 January 1999, at Berkeley, in the State of New South Wales, whilst in the company of two other young persons and Johnathon Whitfield, PL was charged with robbing Ralph Mason of one compact disc player and one mobile phone, both of which were the property of Ralph Mason.
5    PL pleaded guilty to that charge, and the matter was stood over to 4 August 2000 for sentence, and in turn to today for submissions on sentence.
6    The facts are that on 11 January 1999, at 12.45 am, a neighbour of Ralph Mason, Mr Galea, was watching television at his home…

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 PL

Details

AGLC: R v PL [2000] NSWSC 918
Case: [2000] NSWSC 918
Decision Date: 11 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, a juvenile, was convicted of robbery in company and sentenced to imprisonment by the Supreme Court. The appeal was against the sentence imposed. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal which comprised of three judges. The appeal raised questions concerning the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant's age and the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the offending.

The court considered the principles governing sentencing of juveniles and the objectives of sentencing, particularly the need for rehabilitation and deterrence. The court examined the particular circumstances of the offence and the appellant's background, including his age, previous offending history, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court also considered the submissions of counsel for both parties and the sentencing remarks of the primary judge.

The court held that the primary judge had given insufficient weight to the appellant's age and the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the offending. The court also held that the sentence was excessive in light of the appellant's age and prospects for rehabilitation. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was affirmed, and the appellant was re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The final orders of the court included that the appellant be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and that the appeal be allowed in part.

Orders