R v Shenton - [2003] NSWCCA 346

CITATION: REGINA v SHENTON [2003] NSWCCA 346

HEARING DATE(S): 17 November 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 November 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 11; Grove J at 13; Adams J at 1

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - discount for plea - desirability of explicit statement of extent of discount applied

LEGISLATION CITED: ss 33,105A(1)(a), 112(3) Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

PARTIES :

Regina (Respondent)
v
Patrick Neville Shenton (Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60269/03

COUNSEL: G I O Rowling (Crown)
C Smith (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/41/0194

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Graham DCJ

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60269/03

HANDLEY JA

GROVE J

ADAMS J

MONDAY 17 NOVEMBER 2003

REGINA v PATRICK NEVILLE SHENTON

JUDGMENT

1 ADAMS J: The applicant entered the victim’s house by opening a door. This constituted a breaking and entering. He then viciously attacked her using a large metal torch, in the course of which the victim suffered serious fractures, including to her skull.

2 He was initially charged with an offence under s112(3) of the Crimes Act 1900, the circumstance of special aggravation being that he maliciously inflicted grievous bodily harm on the victim (s105A(1)(a)). This offence occurred on 9 December 2002 and the applicant was committed for trial on the charge under s112 on 17 September 2002. An indictment pursuant to that committal had been presented to which he pleaded not guilty on arraignment in this Court.

3 The ordinary procedures then followed and the trial on that indictment was set to commence on 9 December 2002. On 11 November 2002 the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions indicated that the indictment was being reviewed and it was anticipated that the applicant would be indicted instead with an offence under s33 of the Crimes Act 1900, namely, maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm with the intention to do grievous bodily harm. This offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years which is the same maximum term as that provided under s112(3). On 14 November 2002 the Director advised the applicant’s solicitor that it had been determined to proceed as had been previously indicated and, on 20 November 2002, a notice of intention to file an indictment in respect of the offence under s33 was forwarded to the applicant’s solicitor. As it happened the applicant was then held at Goulburn Correctional Centre and, accordingly, it was not possible for his solicitor to consult with him and obtain appropriate instructions until he was next at Court on 9 December 2002, upon which date, as I have indicated, he pleaded guilty to the fresh indictment.

4 During the hearing of the sentence proceedings his Honour, the learned sentencing judge, observed to counsel then representing the applicant that the plea was a late one, an observation with which his counsel agreed. In his Honour’s reasons for sentence…

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 Shenton

Details

AGLC: R v Shenton [2003] NSWCCA 346
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 346
Decision Date: 17 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Shenton involved the defendant, Shenton, who faced sentencing following a guilty plea. The nature of the dispute centred on the discount Shenton received for entering a plea of guilty and whether the court should explicitly state the extent of the discount applied. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge was required to provide an explicit statement of the extent of the discount applied for the guilty plea, and if such a requirement was necessary for a fair and just sentencing process.

The court considered whether there was a legal obligation on the part of the trial judge to articulate the precise extent of the discount granted due to the defendant's guilty plea. The court examined relevant case law and legal principles concerning sentencing and the importance of transparency in the judicial process. The court concluded that while it is generally desirable for a trial judge to provide an explicit statement regarding the discount applied, it is not an absolute requirement. The court emphasised that the primary focus should be on the overall fairness of the sentence, with the extent of the discount being one of several factors considered. The court found that, in the absence of any prejudice to the defendant, an explicit statement was not strictly necessary.

The court's decision was that the trial judge's failure to explicitly state the extent of the discount did not render the sentence unlawful or unfair. The court recognised the importance of transparency but ultimately determined that the overall fairness of the sentence was not compromised in this instance. No further orders were made by the court.

Orders