R v Puafisi
[2001] NSWCCA 439
•30 October 2001
NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CITATION: REGINA v. PUAFISI [2001] NSWCCA 439 revised - 7/19/2002
FILE NUMBER(S):
No. 60840 of 2000
HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 30 October 2001
JUDGMENT DATE: 30/10/2001
PARTIES:
REGINA v.
PUAFISI, Fisiatina
JUDGMENT OF: Ipp AJA Studdert J Greg James J
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/21/3146
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sorby, DCJ.
COUNSEL:
Crown: W.G. Dawe, QC.
App: In person
SOLICITORS:
Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: In person
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - sentence - technical defects in sentencing of primary judge - sentence re-crafted.
LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Regulation 2000
DECISION:
Appeal allowed; sentence quashed; the applicant, in lieu of the sentence passed by the trial judge, be sentenced to a period of imprisonment for two years, five months, 10 days to date from 9 May 2000; a non parole period of 22 months be imposed in respect of that sentence to date from that date; the applicant be ordered to be released on parole on 8 March 2002; in that order the applicant is to be subject to the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service, the order being made in accordance with Form 3 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Regulation 2000 upon the standard conditions; in accordance with the Act, the applicant has been informed of his release date.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 69840 of 2000
IPP, AJA.
STUDDERT, J.
GREG JAMES, J.
TUESDAY 30 OCTOBER 2001
REGINA v. FISIATINA PUAFISI
JUDGMENT
IPP, AJA: Justice Greg James will propose the order to be made.
GREG JAMES, J: This is an application for leave to appeal. It is apparent on the Crown's submissions and on the submissions of the applicant that the sentences are attended with a number of technical defects as not according with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 2000 in a number of respects.
It is conceded by the Crown that the application for leave to appeal should be allowed and the appeal should also be upheld.
It is conceded that the sentence should be re-crafted to represent the trial judge's intention and to accord with a submission of the applicant that he should not have to serve, for these crimes which include the crime for which he was sentenced and those taken into account on the Form I, a longer period of custody than two years' imprisonment.
The re-crafted sentence proposed by the Crown, which seems to accord with the trial judge's intent would, in fact, produce a period of actual custody of 22 months.
The orders I would, therefore, propose, having heard the Crown on what is the appropriate sentence, is that the applicant, in lieu of the sentence passed by the trial judge, be sentenced to a period of imprisonment for two years, five months and 10 days, to date from 9 May 2000. That a non-parole period of 22 months be imposed in respect of that sentence to date from that date. That the applicant be ordered to be released on parole on 8 March 2002 and that in that order he be subject to the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service, the order being made in accordance with Form 3 to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Regulation 2000 upon the standard conditions.
In accordance with the Act, the applicant has been informed of his release date.
IPP, AJA: I agree with that proposal.
STUDDERT, J: So do I.
IPP, AJA: That will be the order of the court, as proposed by Greg James, J.
******
LAST UPDATED: 19/07/2002
0
0
2