R v Reid - [2000] NSWCCA 166

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v REID [2000] NSWCCA 166 revised - 11/05/2000

FILE NUMBER(S):
60656/99

HEARING DATE(S): 5 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 05/05/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
David Charles REID

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J Carruthers AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0274, 99/11/2513

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Shadbolt DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: LMB Lamprati
Appellant: JS Stratton

SOLICITORS:
Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: Brenda Duchen

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Application for leave to appeal is refused

JUDGMENT:

- 10 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60656/99
HULME J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Friday 5 May 2000

REGINA -v-David Charles REID
JUDGMENT

1 HULME J: On 26 October 1999 this applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced in respect of one charge of being accessory after the fact to stealing from a person and another charge of larceny of a motor vehicle. The applicant had pleaded guilty to both charges, to one at committal proceedings.

2 The maximum penalty prescribed for being an accessory after the fact to stealing from a person is five years imprisonment. That prescribed for the offence of stealing a motor vehicle is ten years imprisonment.

3 To the extent of being an accessory the sentence imposed was a full term of three and a half years imprisonment including a term of 18 months commencing on 1 March 1999. His Honour found special circumstances in what he saw as the need of the applicant for a longer than normal period of supervision on parole whilst making some attempt of ridding himself of his drug addiction. His Honour suggested to the applicant that he go back on the methadone or undertake drug and alcohol counselling in prison. In respect of the offence of larceny of a motor vehicle, Judge Shadbolt sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a minimum term of 18 months also commencing on 1 March 1999 and an additional term of six months commencing on 31 August 2000.

4 The circumstances of the offences were as follows. On 1 March 1999 the subject motor vehicle was parked in a locked condition at the Beecroft Railway Station carpark. The applicant and a co-offender broke into the car, the applicant using a screw driver to do so, and then both drove off in it. Near the West Pennant Hills Shopping Centre the co-offender lent out of the passenger side of the motor vehicle and grabbed a handbag a lady was carrying. The two then drove off with the applicant driving. The vehicle was followed by the victim's husband and then by police. After a short pursuit the offenders decamped. Later in the day the applicant was found hiding in the backyard of a nearby house.

5 The grounds of appeal are:-

(1) His Honour erred in not applying the principle of parity.
(2) His Honour sentenced the appellant (sic) on the basis that he was an accessory after the fact to robbery, and
(3) The sentence was manifestly excessive.

6 It is…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 166
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 166
Decision Date: 5 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Reid, the respondent was prosecuted under section 471.13 of the Criminal Code for possessing an article with the intent to use it to defraud. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the respondent appealed against a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal.

The legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's actions constituted possessing an article with the intent to use it to defraud. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the respondent's possession of a device that could be used to create counterfeit credit cards constituted the requisite intent to defraud. The court considered the definition of "possess" in the context of the offence and whether the respondent's actions demonstrated the necessary intent.

The court held that the respondent's possession of the device, coupled with the evidence of his intention to use it to create counterfeit credit cards, established the requisite intent to defraud. The court emphasised that the offence was not limited to cases where the accused had already committed fraud, but could also apply where the accused possessed an article with the intent to commit fraud in the future. The court also noted that the requisite intent could be established through circumstantial evidence, such as the respondent's possession of the device and his actions leading up to the offence. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any specific orders, but the decision clarified the scope of the offence and the type of evidence that could be used to establish the requisite intent. The decision is likely to have implications for future prosecutions under section 471.13 of the Criminal Code.

Orders