R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346 Jack Sua [2000] NSWCCA 94, unreported, 23 February 2000 RLS [2000] NSWCCA 175 Douglas NSWCCA 11 December 1998 Lattouf NSWCCA 12 December 1996 Kable (1995) 36 NSWLR 374 Karacic 2001 NSWCCA 12 R v Ngui and Tiong (2000) 111 A Crim R 593 Walters and JB (2001) NSWCCA 121 Tran (1999) NSWCCA 109 Townsend & Cooper NSW CCA 14 February 1995 Biggs NSWCCA 5 March 1997 Kama [2000] NSWCCA 23, 110 A Crim R 47 GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112 Sharbon NSWCCA 5 December 1991 Wilkie NSWCCA 2 July 1992 R v Pham and Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128 R Hearne [1999] NSWCCA 605 R Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37
DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60191/00
GILES JA WOOD CJ AT CL
SIMPSON J
4 May 2001
REGINA v SDM
Judgment
1 GILES JA: I have had the benefit of reading the judgments of Wood CJ at CL and Simpson J in draft.
2 I agree with the observations of Wood CJ at CL in relation to R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346. In agreement with both their Honours, having regard to the guidelines in R v Henry and the principles particularly applicable in the sentencing of young offenders including those who are in law children, I am not persuaded that the sentence imposed on the appellant was excessive.
3 I agree that leave to appeal should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed.
___________
4 WOOD CJ at CL: In my view the sentence imposed in this case was within a proper range of sentencing discretion, taking into account the objective seriousness of the offence, the subjective circumstances of the applicant, and the special sentencing considerations applicable to young offenders. In this regard I agree with the reasons of Simpson J, and with the orders which she has proposed.
5 It is appropriate to say something more in relation to the applicant’s submission that the guideline judgment in Henry(1999) 46 NSWLR 346 applies only…
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 SDM
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v SDM [2001] NSWCCA 158
Case
[2001] NSWCCA 158
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v SDM, the appellant was convicted of armed robbery and the matter came before the court for sentencing. The appellant, a juvenile at the time of the offence, sought to argue that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that the guidelines set out in Henry should not apply to juvenile offenders. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was excessive and if the guidelines were applicable to the juvenile offender.
The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. Secondly, whether the guidelines set out in Henry should apply to juvenile offenders. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the guidelines were not applicable to juvenile offenders due to the provisions of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987.
The court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account the appellant's age, background, and the nature of the offence. The court also held that the guidelines set out in Henry were applicable to juvenile offenders, as the Act did not exclude their application. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and within the range of sentences that could be imposed on an adult offender.