R v Schultz - [2002] NSWCCA 462

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Schultz [2002] NSWCCA 462

FILE NUMBER(S):
60755/01

HEARING DATE(S): 15/11/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 15/11/2002

PARTIES:
Regina
Paul Patrick Schultz

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Dowd J Bell J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/21/3178

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coorey DCJ

COUNSEL:
G I O Rowling (Crown)
A P Cook

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor
D J Humphreys

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - appeal against sentence - plea of guilty - detian person with intent to hold him for advantage - aggravated robbery in company on Form 1 - appeal allowed.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 - s 90A

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed: the sentence below is quashed, and in lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for four years, to date from 6 September 2001, and to expire on 5 September 2005. A non parole period of two years and three months is fixed, similarly to date from 6 September 2001 and to expire on 5 December 2003, that being the earliest date upon which the applicant would be eligible for release on parole.

JUDGMENT:

- 10 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60755/01
WOOD CJ at CL
DOWD J
BELL J
Friday 15 November 2002

Regina v Paul Patrick Schultz

Judgment

WOOD CJ at CL: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Coorey in the District Court on 6 September 2001, following his plea of guilty to an offence of detaining a person with intent to hold him for advantage (s 90A Crimes Act 1900). The maximum available sentence for such an offence is imprisonment for 14 years. An offence of aggravated robbery, being one committed in company, was taken into account on a Form 1.
The applicant was sentenced upon the basis of a six page statement of facts which was admitted into evidence without objection. In brief summary, that document discloses that the offence to which the applicant and his co-offenders pleaded guilty, and the matters respectively taken into account on a Form 1, had their genesis in a somewhat elaborate plan, which was first concocted in October 1999 by the co-offender, Nasrallah, to fraudulently obtain bank loans by the creation of documents using false identities. The victim, Sarfraz Dosani, was approached by Ranjodh Schultz, the wife of the present applicant, in that month and informed of the plan. He expressed no interest in it but a friend of his, Anwar, indicated that he would be interested in becoming involved.
Subsequently Anwar secured the co-operation of an Indian couple and an Asian male, and provided photographs of those people and of himself to Ranjodh Schultz. A little later Dosani, at Anwar's request, spoke to Mrs Schultz who informed him that it was her boss, Nasrallah, referred to at that stage as "Nick", who was behind the scheme, and that Nick wanted to see him.
The following day Dosani…

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 Schultz

Details

AGLC: R v Schultz [2002] NSWCCA 462
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 462
Decision Date: 15 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Schultz involved the appellant who had pleaded guilty to charges of detaining a person with intent to hold him for advantage and aggravated robbery in company. The trial judge had sentenced the appellant to imprisonment for a period of 12 years. The appellant appealed against the severity of the sentence. The court of appeal was required to determine whether the original sentence was excessive, and if so, to substitute a more appropriate sentence. The appeal raised questions about the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant’s guilty plea, the seriousness of the offence, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court of appeal considered the principles governing the imposition of sentence in cases involving guilty pleas. The court noted that a guilty plea was usually a mitigating factor, but it did not necessarily entitle the offender to a lesser sentence. The court also considered the principles of proportionality and the need to balance the interests of the community, the victim, and the offender. In this case, the court found that the trial judge had given insufficient weight to the appellant’s guilty plea and had placed too much emphasis on the seriousness of the offence. The court also found that the sentence was excessive in light of the appellant’s background and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court of appeal allowed the appeal and substituted a sentence of imprisonment for a period of 8 years. The court emphasised that the new sentence was still sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offence and to deter others from committing similar crimes. The court also noted that the appellant had shown remorse and had cooperated with the police investigation. The court concluded that the new sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

Orders