R v Slater - [2001] NSWCCA 65

Reported Decision:
121 A Crim R 369

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Slater [2001] NSWCCA 65 revised - 23/03/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60045/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 7/03/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Darren Alan Slater

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 42; Sperling J at 54; Carruthers AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : L97/016

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sully J

COUNSEL : R. Burgess (Appellant)
M. C. Marien (Crown)

SOLICITORS: D. J. Humphreys (Appellant)
S. E. O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Appeal - Severity - conviction for murder by youthful offender - a worst category of case but not requiring a sentence for the term of the offender's natural life - sentencing Judge misinformed as to the period served in protective custody - appellant to be re-sentenced on the basis that he will serve virtually the whole sentence in protective custody.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED:
R v Barry [2000] NSW CCA 138
R v Boreland, NSW CCA 2 August 1994, Unreported
R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
R v Gieselman, NSW CCA 13 July 1998, Unreported
R v Hearne [2001] NSW CCA 37
R v Herring, NSW CCA 24 November 1998, Unreported
R v Lees [1999] NSW CCA 301
R v Lett, NSW CCA 23 June 1998, Unreported
R v Maiden (1999) NSW SC 311
R v Previtera (1997) A Crim R 76
R v Short [2000] NSW CCA 462
R v Stephens [1999] NSW CCA 80
R v Tran [1999] NSW CCA 109
R v Twala, NSW CCA 4 November 1994, Unreported
R v Websdale (2000) NSW SC 636
R v White NSW CCA 23 June 1998, Unreported

DECISION: See paragraphs 40, 41.

- 1 -1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I will ask Carruthers AJ to deliver the

first judgment.

2 CARRUTHERS AJ: Darren Alan Slater seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him on 26 November 1999 by Sully J. The sentence was imposed by his Honour in determining an application by the applicant for re-determination of a life sentence he was serving, pursuant to the provisions of s13A of the Sentencing Act 1989, (since repealed).

3 The applicant was found guilty of murder pursuant to s19A(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, following trial before Loveday J and a jury of twelve at the Central Criminal Court. On 12 October 1990 Loveday J sentenced the applicant to penal servitude for life. When sentencing the applicant Loveday J said:

"The circumstances indicate a tragedy of monumental proportions, not only to the victim but to the victim's relatives, family and friends, also to you and your family and friends. You are a young man, you were only eighteen at the time, and you became involved in a series of events that may well have overwhelmed you. But the fact is that you are found guilty, on evidence that seemed to me to be…

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 Slater

Details

AGLC: R v Slater [2001] NSWCCA 65
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 65
Decision Date: 7 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Slater involved the appellant, who had been convicted of murder by a youthful offender. The appeal centred around the severity of the sentence imposed by the court. The appellant argued that the sentence, which required him to serve the term of his natural life, was excessive given the circumstances of the case. The appellant's counsel further contended that the sentencing judge had been misinformed about the period the appellant had already served in protective custody. As a result, the appellant sought a re-sentencing that would take into account the time already spent in protective custody.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the appellant's age and the specific circumstances of the case. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the sentencing judge had been correctly informed about the period served in protective custody and whether this misinformation had influenced the original sentence. The appeal raised questions about the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, particularly in cases involving youthful offenders.

The court found that, while the case was of the worst category, it did not warrant a sentence for the term of the appellant's natural life. The court also concluded that the sentencing judge had not been correctly informed about the period served in protective custody, which was a material consideration in determining the appropriate sentence. Consequently, the court ordered a re-sentencing for the appellant. The re-sentencing was to be based on the premise that the appellant would serve virtually the entire sentence in protective custody, reflecting the court's view that the original sentence was overly severe and had not adequately taken into account the appellant's age and the time already spent in protective custody.

Orders