Legal Research
Cases
R v Simpson

R v Simpson

Case [2001] NSWCCA 534 19 December 2001

Sentencing

Appeal

Statutory Interpretation

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
53 NSWLR 704
126 A Crim R 525

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v SIMPSON [2001] NSWCCA 534

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60791/00

HEARING DATE(S): 22 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 December 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Neil Andrew Simpson

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Mason P at 95; Grove J at 96; Sully J at 97; Newman AJ at 103

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/0304

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL : T A Game SC / H K Dhanji (Applicant)
R Hulme (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Marsdens (Applicant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - "special circumstances" - Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s44(2) - CRIMINAL LAW - sentence appeals - statutory trigger for re-sentencing - Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s6(3)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Code (WA)
Probation and Parole Act 1983
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED:
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525
Deakin v The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 367
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Griffiths v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 372
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Leeth v The Queen (1992) 67 ALJR 167
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Power v The Queen (1973) 131 CLR 623
The Queen v Watt (1988) 165 CLR 474
R v Astill (No 2) (1992) 64 ACrimR 289
R v Bo Too (NSWCCA, 16 July 1992, unreported)
R v Carrion (2000) 49 NSWLR 149
R v Edigarov [2001] NSWCCA 436
R v GDR (1994) 35 NSWLR 376
R v Hameed [2001] NSWCCA 287
R v Hampton (1998) 44 NSWLR 729
R v Henry & Barber [1999] NSWCCA 107
R v McDonald (NSWCCA, 12 October 1998, unreported)
R v Maclay (1990) 19 NSWLR 112
R v Majors (1991) 54 ACrimR 334
R v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
R v Morrissey (NSWCCA, 15 July 1994, unreported)
R v Phelan (1993) 66 ACrimR 447
R v Portolesi [1973] 1 NSWLR 105
R v Qutami [2000] NSWCCA 353
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 297
R v Sloane [1973] 1 NSWLR 202
R v Thompson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 683
R v Vachalec [1981] 1NSWLR 351
R v Visconti [1982] 2 NSWLR 104

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal dismissed.

60791/00

SPIGELMAN CJ
MASON P
GROVE J
SULLY J
NEWMAN AJ
Wednesday 19 December 2001

REGINA v Neil Andrew SIMPSON

Facts

The Applicant pleaded guilty to seven counts of obtaining money by making a false statement contrary to s178BB of the Crimes Act 1900. His Honour Judge Gibson QC imposed a fixed term of two years for Counts 1-6 and, for Count 7, a term of three years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and seven months. In sentencing the Applicant, his Honour found that there were no special circumstances that would warrant the imposition of a shorter non-parole period under s44(2) of…

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 Simpson

Details

AGLC: R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 534
Decision Date: 19 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Simpson involved the defendant, Simpson, who was convicted of a serious crime and subsequently sentenced by a lower court in Australia. The nature of the dispute centred around the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, with Simpson arguing that the sentence was excessive and should be reduced. Simpson appealed to a higher court, seeking a re-sentencing on the grounds that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and did not reflect certain special circumstances.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive and, if so, whether the special circumstances doctrine under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 warranted a reduction in sentence. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the statutory trigger for re-sentencing was satisfied under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The court was required to carefully consider the principles of sentencing, the role of special circumstances, and the legislative framework governing sentence appeals.

In its reasoning, the court first examined the original sentence and the factors considered by the lower court in imposing it. The court then evaluated the evidence and arguments presented regarding the special circumstances that Simpson claimed warranted a reduced sentence. The court held that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and that the special circumstances did warrant a lesser sentence. The court concluded that the statutory trigger for re-sentencing was satisfied under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, leading to the decision to reduce the sentence imposed on Simpson.

The final orders of the court included a re-sentencing of Simpson, reflecting a reduced penalty that took into account the special circumstances identified. The court's decision underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the role of special circumstances in achieving a just outcome. The case serves as a reminder of the stringent standards required for a sentence to be deemed manifestly excessive and the procedural requirements for re-sentencing under the relevant statutory framework.

Orders