Legal Research
Cases
R v Potier

R v Potier

Case [2004] NSWCCA 136 25 August 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Potier [2004] NSWCCA 136

HEARING DATE(S): 21/4/04, 4/8/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 1; Bell J at 1

DECISION: 1.Defendant's application for leave to appeal against severity of the sentences refused. 2.Crown appeal against leniency allowed. 3. Quash the sentences below, and in lieu thereof; (a) sentence the defendant, in relation to Count 2, to a term of imprisonment for 6 years and 8 months, to commence from 8 May 2000, with a non-parole period of 5 years, similarly to commence from 8 May 2000 and to expire on 7 May 2005; (b) sentence the defendant in relation to Count 1 to a term of imprisonment for 6 years and 8 months, to commence from 8 May 2002, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months, to commence from 8 May 2002 and to expire on 7 August 2006.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - soliciting to murder- context of custody battle - seeking leave to appeal against severity of sentence - Crown appeal against manifest inadequacy of sentence - question of inherent criminality.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15
Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Ah-See [2004] NSWCCA 202
R v Bednarz [2000] NSWCCA 533
R v Derbas [2003] NSWCCA 44
Regina v Durocher-Yvon [2003] NSWCCA 299
Regina v Hayes [2001] NSWCCA 410
R v Hofer [2001] NSWCCA 544
R v Kain [2004] NSWCCA 143
R v Lewis (1998) 100 A Crim R 361
R v Marat AY NSWCCA 30 October 1998
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Mostyn [2004] NSWCCA 97
R v Oliver NSWCCA 20 March 1980
Regina v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 28
R v Taouk (1993) 65 A Crim R 387
R v Totten [2003] NSWCCA 207
R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104
Regina v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
R v Wright NSWCCA 28 February 1997

PARTIES :
Regina
Malcolm Huntley Potier

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60695/01; 60403/02

COUNSEL: P Power SC (Crown - 60403/02 and 60695/01)
Ms J Mundey (Respondent 60403/02)

SOLICITORS: C K Smith (Crown)
S E O'Connor (60403/02)
Applicant in Person (60695/01)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/21/3216

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Hosking DCJ

- 1 -

60695/01
60403/02

WOOD CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
BELL J

Wednesday 25 August 2004

Regina v Malcolm Huntley Potier

Judgment

1 THE COURT: On 19 September 2001, Malcolm Huntley Potier was indicted before his Honour Judge Hosking SC at the Sydney District Court, on two counts, that between 2 May 2000 and 8 May 2000 he did solicit an undercover police operative, with the assumed name of “M”, to murder…

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 Potier

Details

AGLC: R v Potier [2004] NSWCCA 136
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 136
Decision Date: 25 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Potier arose where the respondent was convicted of soliciting to murder. The dispute involves the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court and whether it was manifestly inadequate. Additionally, the Crown appealed against the same sentence, contending that it was not sufficiently severe. The case revolves around the inherent criminality of the offence and the appropriate punishment that should be meted out for such a serious crime.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the Crown's appeal against the sentence was justified. The court had to determine the inherent criminality of the offence of soliciting to murder, particularly in the context of a custody battle. This involved assessing the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence, as well as the potential for rehabilitation of the offender. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the principles of proportionality and consistency in sentencing.

The court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate given the nature of the crime. The inherent criminality of soliciting to murder was underscored, highlighting the potential for harm and the serious breach of public trust. The court noted that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or serve as a sufficient deterrent. In light of these findings, the court allowed the Crown's appeal and increased the sentence imposed on the respondent. The court emphasised the importance of consistent and proportionate sentencing for offences of this nature.

Orders