R v Smith & Jones - [2001] NSWCCA 279

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Smith & Jones [2001] NSWCCA 279

FILE NUMBER(S):
60257/00
60258/00

HEARING DATE(S): 10 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 20/07/2001

PARTIES:
Regina v Smith & Jones

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA Mathews AJA Studdert J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:

COUNSEL:
M.C. Grogan (Crown)
T.A. Game SC/M. Buscombe (Applicants)

SOLICITORS:
S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
R.F. Bergagnin & Co. (Applicants)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act
Criminal Appeal Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

DECISION:
See para 14

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60257/00 and 60258/00
HODGSON JA
MATHEWS AJA
STUDDERT J

Friday 20 July 2001

REGINA v SMITH
REGINA v JONES
JUDGMENT

THE COURT: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed on the applicants in the District Court. For reasons which will become apparent, the background of this matter will be described in extremely general terms in this part of the judgment in order to ensure that the applicants remain unidentifiable. The balance of our reasons will be contained in a separate confidential judgment.
Both applicants were convicted of serious offences and received lengthy prison sentences. The sentencing judge’s reasons for sentence are in unexceptionable terms. He referred to the seriousness of the offences committed by the applicants and dealt with the subjective features of each of them. He then proceeded to sentence them in a manner which, on its face, displayed no error in principle or application. His reasons for sentence contained no mention of any assistance rendered by the applicants to the authorities or any reduction of sentence on that account.
As it transpires, the applicants had in fact rendered a great deal of assistance to the authorities. A document which was before his Honour, and which we have seen, attests to the “exceptional” assistance which was given by both applicants. Also in the sealed envelope is a copy of submissions made to the sentencing judge on behalf of the applicants urging that, because of the safety issues involved, his Honour not mention during the sentencing process that any assistance had been given by either applicant. His Honour’s failure to advert to this issue must be taken to have been in response to this request.
In seeking to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed upon them, the applicants now criticise the sentencing judge’s approach on this matter, which they say constituted a fatal error in the sentencing process. This is their first ground of appeal.
The applicants rely upon the fundamental proposition that there must be transparency in the sentencing process and that a sentencing judge’s reasons must fully indicate the process by which the sentence is reached; see R v Tait andBartley (1979) 24 ALR 473. In this case, as the applicants point out, it is not possible to discern from his Honour’s reasons on sentence the extent to which, if at all, his Honour took account of the assistance rendered…

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 & Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Smith and Jones [2001] NSWCCA 279
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 279
Decision Date: 20 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith & Jones involved the defendants, Smith and Jones, who were convicted of various criminal offences under the Crimes Act. The dispute centred around the legality of their convictions and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had jurisdiction to hear appeals under the Criminal Appeal Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the convictions and if the sentences handed down were excessive or inappropriate. The court had to consider the applicable legal principles and statutory provisions, including those in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, in assessing the appeal.

The court reviewed the evidence and found that it was indeed sufficient to support the convictions of Smith and Jones. However, the court found that the sentences imposed were too harsh, taking into account the mitigating factors presented. The court exercised its discretion under the relevant statutes to reduce the sentences accordingly. The court held that while the crimes committed were serious, the original sentences did not adequately reflect the mitigating circumstances and the need for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the convictions of Smith and Jones were upheld, but their sentences were reduced to terms deemed more appropriate by the court. The defendants were to serve the modified sentences as determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Orders