R v Rae - [2001] NSWCCA 545

CITATION: Regina v Stephen John Rae [2001] NSWCCA 545

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60022/00

HEARING DATE(S): 12 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 December 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Stephen John Rae

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1 & 25; Sully J at 5; Levine J at 24

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/12/2124

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Karpin DCJ

COUNSEL : G. Smith - Crown
P. Byrne SC/M. Marty - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
Ross Hill & Assoc. - Applicant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act (1900) NSW

CASES CITED:
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Twala, unreported, NSWCCA 24 October 1994
R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence granted; substantive appeal dismissed

60022/00

GILES JA

SULLY J

LEVINE J

Wednesday 12 December 2001

REGINS v STEPHEN JOHN RAE

JUDGMENT

1 GILES JA: The application, in my view, came down to two points.

2 The first point was that there was sentencing error in that Karpin DCJ took into account the strength of the main case in relation to the plea of guilty in a manner contrary to what was said in R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 at [136-7] in that she took it as qualifying the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty as distinct from, or in addition to, qualifying the extent of genuine contrition. As Sully J has said, any discount for a plea of guilty and what the discount should be depends on the facts, and the facts here did not provide a significant case for a discount. Nonetheless her Honour did make allowance for the plea. I do not read her Honour's remarks on sentence in the way required for the applicant's argument. In my opinion, what her Honour said is quite compatible with regard to the strength of the Crown case only in a permissible way.

3 The other point was that, acknowledging to the full the objective seriousness of the offence, the findings of various matters in favour of the applicant were not sufficiently reflected in the sentence. The matters were set out at length in the remarks on sentence. For the reasons given by Sully J, with which I agree, I consider that her Honour's assessment of the weight to be given to those matters in favour of the applicant was open to her, and accordingly that the sentence at which she arrived was within the range open to her.

4 I agree with the orders his Honour proposed.

5 SULLY J: This is an application by Mr Stephen Rae for leave to appeal against the asserted severity of a sentence of imprisonment that was passed upon him by her Honour Judge Karpin on 23 December 1999 in the Parramatta District Court.

6 On 25 October 1999 the applicant was arraigned before her Honour on an indictment charging that on or about 3 February 1998 at Ashfield, he had caused grievous bodily harm to one Gabriella…

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 Rae

Details

AGLC: R v Rae [2001] NSWCCA 545
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 545
Decision Date: 12 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Regina v Stephen John Rae involved a challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed by the District Court on the applicant, Stephen John Rae, for causing grievous bodily harm with intent to murder and an additional offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The applicant, who had no prior criminal record, had pleaded guilty to the charges, which arose from a violent attack on his former partner, Gabriella Mazzali, and another individual, Stephen Swain. The attack involved dousing Mazzali with petrol and setting her alight, resulting in severe and permanent injuries to Mazzali and burns to Swain.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether there was a sentencing error by the District Court in considering the strength of the Crown's case when determining the discount for the applicant's guilty plea, and whether the District Court had sufficiently reflected in the sentence the mitigating factors in favour of the applicant. The applicant argued that the sentence of imprisonment for nineteen years and eight months, with a minimum term of fourteen years and nine months, was excessive. The Crown maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the objective seriousness of the crimes.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that there was no sentencing error in the way the District Court considered the applicant's guilty plea. The Court found that the District Court's assessment of the strength of the Crown's case was permissible and did not amount to an error. Additionally, the Court concluded that the District Court had appropriately balanced the mitigating factors, such as the applicant's age, lack of criminal history, limited remorse, and emotional condition, against the objective severity of the crimes. The Court determined that the sentence imposed was within the range open to the District Court and did not warrant interference by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The Court granted leave to appeal against the sentence but dismissed the substantive appeal, affirming the original sentence. The Court emphasized the gravity of the applicant's crimes, highlighting the devastating impact on the victim, Gabriella Mazzali, and the need to uphold principles against vengeful violence stemming from relationship breakdowns.

Orders