R v Reid

Case [2016] NSWCCA 151 4 August 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Reid [2016] NSWCCA 151
Hearing dates: 22 July 2016
Date of orders: 04 August 2016
Decision date: 04 August 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
R A Hulme J at [56]
N Adams J at [57]
Decision:
Crown appeal under s 5D dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against sentence – doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice – participating in the preparation of a false alibi and statement – s 9 bond imposed – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Crown case consisting mainly of telephone intercepts – respondent an active participant in offence – respondent gave evidence in sentence proceedings – strong subjective case – sentence manifestly inadequate – residual discretion – custodial sentence would seriously interfere with respondent’s rehabilitation – Crown appeal dismissed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 319
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 5(1), 9, 21A(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5D
Cases Cited: CMB v Attorney General for NSW [2015] HCA 9; 89 ALJR 407
Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 118
Marinellis v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 307
R v Fahda [2013] NSWCCA 86
Regina v Giang [2001] NSWCCA 276
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina – Applicant Crown
Aaron Joseph Reid - Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Ingram – Applicant Crown
Mr S Healy - Respondent
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions – Applicant Crown
C Hill - Respondent

File Number(s): 2015/226602
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

8 March 2016

Before:

Baly SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2015/226602

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL:

Offences and sentence

The respondent was charged that between 10 August 2014 and 3 September 2014 he did an act with intent to pervert the course of justice contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years.

The respondent came before her Honour Judge Baly SC DCJ for sentence in the District Court at Orange on 8 March 2016. Her Honour sentenced the respondent to a good behaviour bond pursuant to s 9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) for 2 years and 6 months.
A Notice of Appeal, signed by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 21 March 2016, was served upon the respondent on 23 March 2016. The Director of Public Prosecutions now appeals pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against that sentence.
The grounds of appeal are as follows:

Ground 1 – The sentencing judge erred by taking into account the respondent’s moral culpability when assessing the objective seriousness of the offence.

Ground 2 – The sentencing judge erred by assessing the objective seriousness of the offence as falling within the low range.

Ground 3 – The sentence pronounced was manifestly inadequate.

Factual Background

The respondent was a close associate of Mark Gunderson (Gunderson) who…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2016] NSWCCA 151
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 151
Decision Date: 04 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reid involved the respondent who had participated in the preparation of a false alibi and statement, with the intent to pervert the course of justice. The appeal was brought by the Crown, seeking a more severe sentence on the grounds that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. The case was heard in the appellate court.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the respondent's active participation in the offence justified a harsher penalty. The court needed to consider the subjective case presented by the Crown, which primarily relied on telephone intercepts, and the respondent's involvement in the offence. Additionally, the court had to weigh the potential impact of a custodial sentence on the respondent's rehabilitation.

The appellate court found that the Crown had presented a strong subjective case against the respondent, who was an active participant in the offence. Despite this, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court reasoned that while a custodial sentence would have serious implications for the respondent's rehabilitation, it was not necessary to impose one given the circumstances of the case. The residual discretion of the court was exercised to maintain the original sentence, and the Crown's appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the original sentence imposed on the respondent would stand, and no further appeal would be entertained in relation to the sentence.

Orders