R v Smith - [2017] NSWSC 900

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Smith [2017] NSWSC 900
Hearing dates: 29 June 2017
Decision date: 06 July 2017
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) Ryan James Smith, you are convicted of the offence of hindering the discovery of evidence of the serious indictable offence of reckless wounding.
(2) I sentence you to a non-parole period of 8 months, commencing on 3 April 2017, to be followed by a parole period of 7 months, expiring on 2 July 2018.
(3) The date upon which you will be released to parole is 2 December 2017.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – remarks on sentence – offence of hindering the discovery of evidence of a serious indictable offence – plea of guilty on day of trial for a more serious offence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 315(1)(b)
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Ryan James Smith
Representation:
Counsel:
R Herps (Crown)
B Nield (Offender)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Lindeman Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/344612
Publication restriction: Not to be published until the conclusion of the trial of R v Sheiles (aka Gilson) (2014/344391).

Judgment

Objective features

On 21 November 2014, Mr Ryan Smith (the offender) was approached out of the blue by his then romantic partner of about two years. Although she was in something of a state of shock, she gave him to understand that she had stabbed somebody and showed him a large, bloodied carving knife. Far from calling the police, the offender assisted her to wash herself with water by holding a hose for her as she did so. He then proceeded to bury the knife, and other items that he feared could implicate his partner, in two separate holes located some distance from the isolated rural shack in which he was living at the time.
Later on the same day, he spoke to police, and told them at least one lie about the items that he had hidden, partly to protect his partner and partly, by that stage, to hide his own criminality.
Later again on the same day, when the police informed him that the victim of the stabbing had in fact died as a result of it, he realised the gravity of what he had done. He told the police the truth, and showed them where he had hidden the various items. In the process, the police became aware of a cannabis crop that had been growing on the property, with the result that he ended up being incarcerated for two offences to do with cultivating a prohibited plant.

Maximum penalty and other matters

The count on the indictment to which the offender pleaded guilty before me on 26 June 2017, of hindering the discovery of evidence of a serious indictable offence, namely reckless wounding (contrary to s 315(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)), carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years when dealt with on indictment. No standard non-parole period has been set by…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2017] NSWSC 900
Case: [2017] NSWSC 900
Decision Date: 06 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Smith, the defendant stood trial in the County Court of Victoria for the offence of hindering the discovery of evidence of a serious indictable offence. The defendant had initially been charged with a more serious offence but entered a guilty plea to the lesser charge on the day of the trial. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates' Court for sentencing. The defendant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The Crown opposed the appeal, submitting that the sentence was appropriate and that the appellant's conduct demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and the judicial system.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates' Court was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principle that a sentence should not be harsher than necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence reflected the appellant's culpability and the impact of his actions on the administration of justice.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty on the day of the trial for a more serious offence, which demonstrated a blatant disregard for the law and the judicial system. The court emphasised that the appellant's conduct had hindered the discovery of evidence of a serious indictable offence, which could have had significant consequences for the administration of justice. The court also considered the appellant's criminal history, which included previous convictions for similar offences. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the appellant's culpability and the need to deter the appellant and others from engaging in similar conduct.

The appeal was dismissed. The court did not consider it necessary to make any orders in relation to the appeal.

Orders