R v SLR - [2000] NSWCCA 436

Reported Decision: 116 A Crim R 150

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v SLR [2000] NSWCCA 436

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60600/99

HEARING DATE(S): 25 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 February 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v SLR

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 34; Carruthers AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/31/0542

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Howie DCJ

COUNSEL : M G Pincott (Solicitor) (Appellant)
P Hock (Crown/Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Sydney Regional Aboriginal Legal Service (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown/Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence appeal - 18 year old female pregnant at the time of sentence - custodial sentence imposed with direction that they served in a juvenile detention centre - fresh evidence that facilities unavailable for appellant to keep child after confinement in a juvenile centre - such facilities available in an adult prison under Mothers and Children Programme.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Correctional Centres Act 1952
Children (Detention Centres) Act, 1989

CASES CITED:
Regina v XYJ (Unreported) NSWCCA 15 June 1992;
Regina v Edwards (1996) 98 ACrimR 510;
Regina v Wirth (1976) SASR 291 at 295

DECISION: Appeal allowed - order varied to provide "appellant to serve her sentence in a Juvenile Centre until she gives birth to her proposed child and thereafter she be transferred to an adult prison."

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA60699/99

HIDDEN J
CARRUTHERS AJ

Friday, 25 February 2000

REGINA v S L R
JUDGMENT

1 CARRUTHERS AJ: The applicant, S L R, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon her by Howie DCJ at the Port Macquarie District Court on 29 October 1999. The applicant had earlier pleaded guilty to an indictment containing four counts: the first count was steal from the person under s94 of the Crimes Act, 1900 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) which carries a maximum penalty of fourteen years. 2 The second count was under s59 of the Act, occasioning actual bodily harm, which carries a maximum penalty of five years penal servitude. 3 The third count was under section 148 of the Act, steal from a dwelling, which carries a maximum penalty of seven years penal servitude. 4 The fourth count was a further count under s94. 5 In relation to the first count, his Honour imposed a fixed term of three months penal servitude to commence on 29 October 1999 and to expire on 28 January 2000. In respect of the second count, his Honour imposed a fixed term of six months penal servitude to commence on 29 October 1999 and to expire on 28 April 2000. 6 In relation to the third count, his Honour imposed a fixed term of three months penal servitude to commence on 29 October 1999 and to expire on 29 January 2000. 7 Finally, in respect of the fourth count, his Honour imposed a minimum term of four months penal servitude to commence on 29 April 2000 and to expire on 28 August 2000, with…

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 SLR

Details

AGLC: R v SLR [2000] NSWCCA 436
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 436
Decision Date: 25 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v SLR involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on an 18-year-old female who was pregnant at the time of sentencing. The appellant had been sentenced to a custodial term, with the direction that this sentence be served in a juvenile detention centre. The appeal centred on the availability of facilities for the appellant to keep her child after confinement in a juvenile centre, compared to the availability of such facilities in an adult prison under the Mothers and Children Programme.

The central legal issue was whether the original sentencing court had adequately considered the availability of the Mothers and Children Programme in an adult prison, which provided facilities for the appellant to keep her child, in contrast to the juvenile detention centre. The court had to determine whether this oversight constituted a significant error in the sentencing process, warranting an appeal and potentially a modification of the sentence.

The court held that the original sentencing court had not given sufficient consideration to the availability of the Mothers and Children Programme. This oversight was seen as a significant error, as it potentially impacted the appellant's ability to care for her child while serving her sentence. The court found that the availability of this programme in an adult prison was a relevant factor that should have been taken into account. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and substituted the original sentence with one that permitted the appellant to serve her sentence in an adult prison under the Mothers and Children Programme.

The final orders of the court directed that the appellant's sentence be served in an adult prison, allowing her to participate in the Mothers and Children Programme and keep her child with her during the term of imprisonment. This decision underscores the importance of considering the specific needs of pregnant and parenting offenders when determining custodial sentences.

Orders