IN THE MATTER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S APPLICATION (NO 1) UNDER s26 OF THE CRIMINAL APPEAL ACT; R v PONFIELD; R v SCOTT; R v RYAN; R v JOHNSON [1999] NSWCCA 435
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA A00001/99; 60326/99; 60198/99; 60498/98; 60076/99
HEARING DATE(S):
1 October 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 1999
PARTIES :
Attorney General Regina Robert George Ponfield Phillip John Scott Shannon Ryan Jason Lisle Johnson
J B Phelan DCJ (Attorney General & Ponfield); McGuire DCJ (Scott); Nield DCJ (Ryan); Ford DCJ (Johnson)
COUNSEL:
Appellants T L Buddin SC / R Burgess (Attorney General) C K Maxwell QC / M Buscombe (Ponfield) S J Odgers (Scott) P J D Hamill (Ryan) P Byrne SC (Johnson) Respondents J C Nicholson QC (Public Defender) (Attorney General) J S Stratton (Ponfield) C K Maxwell QC / M Buscombe (Scott, Ryan, Johnson)
SOLICITORS:
Appellants I V Knight (Attorney General) S E O'Connor (Ponfield) T A Murphy (Scott) Heenan & Co (Ryan) Naomi Hamilton (Johnson) Respondents T A Murphy (Ponfield) S E O'Connor (Scott, Ryan, Johnson)
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW; PARTICULAR OFFENCES; property offences; breaking, entering and stealing, s112(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); CRIMINAL LAW; SENTENCING; sentencing guidelines; appropriateness of a guideline judgment; prevalence of the offence; impact on prison population; particular offender profiles; CRIMINAL LAW; SENTENCING; type of guideline; quantitative guidelines not appropriate; variety of circumstances in which offence committed; majority of cases heard in local court; sentencing considerations outlines; circumstances of aggravation and mitigation
IN THE MATTER OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S APPLICATION (No 1) UNDER s 26 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT
REGINA v ROBERT GEORGE PONFIELD REGINA v PHILLIP JOHN SCOTT REGINA v SHANNON RYAN REGINA v JASON LISLE JOHNSON
Held (Per curiam): 1. Appropriateness of a guideline judgment Recognised circumstances calling for a guideline judgment are perceptions of the prevalence of the offence, inconsistency in sentence quantification, emergent patterns of sentence which are either manifestly inadequate or excessive, and the requirements of general deterrence. R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111, (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, followed.
Whilst the maximum sentence for an offence is always a relevant consideration in the exercise of the sentencing discretion, a particular difficulty arises with respect to s112 (cast in terms of breaking and entering and committing a felony), which, as it applies to the full range of felonies, renders the maximum less useful as an indicator for sentencing where the felony involved in a particular case is not one of the more serious…
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 Ponfield
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 435
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 435
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Ponfield was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant, Ponfield, was charged under section 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for breaking and entering and stealing. The dispute centred around the defendant's actions and the appropriate sentencing for the offence. The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the application of sentencing guidelines to this particular case and the appropriateness of a guideline judgment given the prevalence of the offence and its impact on the prison population.
The primary legal issues were whether the sentencing guidelines provided by the court were suitable for the offence in question and if a guideline judgment was appropriate. The court had to consider the variety of circumstances in which such offences are committed and the fact that the majority of these cases are heard in the local court. It was also necessary to examine the sentencing considerations that outline the circumstances of aggravation and mitigation. The court had to balance the need for a consistent approach to sentencing with the need to consider the individual circumstances of the offender.
The court found that quantitative guidelines were not suitable for this type of offence due to the wide variety of circumstances in which it is committed. The majority of cases are heard in the local court, and therefore, the sentencing considerations outlined in the guidelines were deemed appropriate. The court concluded that a guideline judgment was suitable in this case, taking into account the prevalence of the offence and its impact on the prison population. The court also considered the particular offender profiles and the circumstances of aggravation and mitigation.
The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced according to the guidelines provided, with consideration given to the individual circumstances of the case. The court emphasised the importance of a consistent approach to sentencing while also allowing for flexibility in individual cases. The court acknowledged the need to address the prevalence of the offence and its impact on the prison population but found that a guideline judgment was appropriate in this instance.