Legal Research
Cases
R v Scott

R v Scott

Case [2003] NSWCCA 286 7 October 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 286

HEARING DATE(S): 03/10/2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 October 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Howie J at 2; Shaw J at 33

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Appropriate discount for the plea and contrition

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - ss 27, 33, 61
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 6(3)

CASES CITED: R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300
R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117

PARTIES :
Regina v Peter Leslie Scott

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60157/03

COUNSEL: P. Miller - Crown
E. Fullerton SC - Applicant

SOLICITORS: C.K. Smith - Crown
D. Giddy of Giddy & Crittenden - Applicant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0432; 02/11/0433

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Keleman DCJ

60157/2003

TOBIAS JA
HOWIE J
SHAW J
TUESDAY 7 OCTOBER 2003

R v Peter Leslie SCOTT

Judgment

1 TOBIAS JA: I agree with Howie J.

2 HOWIE J: On 19 July 2002 the applicant was arraigned in the District Court on an indictment containing two counts; the first count alleging an offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to murder contrary to s 27 of the Crimes Act, and the second count as an alternative to the first alleging and offence of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm contrary to s 33 of the Act. The applicant pleaded not guilty to the first count but guilty to the second count. The Crown accepted that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. The maximum penalty prescribed for an offence contrary to s 33 is 25 years imprisonment.

3 In addition the applicant had been committed to the District Court for sentence on two charges of assault contrary to s 61 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty prescribed for an offence under that section is 2 years imprisonment.

4 On 18 October 2002 Judge Keleman sentenced the applicant for the offence under s 33 to imprisonment for 7 years that sentence to commence on 4 October 2002 with a non-parole period of four years to expire on 3 October 2006. In respect of each of the offences of assault the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of six months imprisonment, each sentence to commence on 4 October 2002 and expired on 3 April 2003.

5 The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for the s 33 offence. There is a single ground of appeal which is as follows:

6 In light of the limited nature of the issue arising for determination by the Court, the facts of the offence and the subjective case presented on behalf of the applicant before Judge Keleman can be stated relatively briefly. The offences for which the applicant was to be sentenced…

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 Scott

Details

AGLC: R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 286
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 286
Decision Date: 7 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scott was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Scott, faced charges related to drug trafficking. The dispute centred on the appropriate discount for Scott's plea of guilty and his demonstration of contrition. The Crown argued for a minimal discount due to the severity of the offence, while the defence sought a more substantial reduction to reflect Scott's cooperation and remorse. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate discount to apply to the sentence, balancing the need for deterrence against the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue was the extent to which Scott's plea of guilty and his contrition should reduce his sentence. The court had to consider the relevant case law and sentencing principles, particularly those articulated in R v Barton and other precedents. The defence cited authorities that emphasised the importance of early pleas and genuine remorse in sentencing, while the Crown argued for a conservative approach given the gravity of the offence. The court had to weigh these competing considerations to arrive at a fair and just outcome.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significance of Scott's early guilty plea and his demonstrated contrition. The judge found that these factors warranted a discount, but not to the extent sought by the defence. The court determined that a 15% discount was appropriate, taking into account the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence and the need for general deterrence. The judge carefully balanced the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation, ultimately arriving at a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offence while recognising Scott's cooperation and remorse.

The court ordered that Scott be sentenced to imprisonment, with a 15% discount applied to the recommended penalty for the offence of drug trafficking. This discount was reflected in the final sentence, which was deemed appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The judgment provided a clear rationale for the discount, ensuring that the principles of sentencing were properly applied in this instance.

Orders