R v Sok - [2000] NSWCCA 121

CITATION: R v SOK [2000] NSWCCA 121

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60492/99

HEARING DATE(S): 12 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 April 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Samantha Sok

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1; Dowd J at 20

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Local Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/3051

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Moore DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: PG Berman
Appellant: R Burgess

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: TA Murphy

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed

- 7 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60492/99

HULME J
DOWD J

Friday, 14 April 2000

REGINA -v-Samantha SOK

JUDGMENT

1    HULME J: On 20 August 1999 the Applicant was sentenced by Judge Moore to penal servitude for 5 years including a minimum term of 3 years, both periods dating from 14 January 1999 when Ms Sok went into custody. Ms Sok seeks leave to appeal from the sentence imposed.
2 The charge for which the sentence was imposed was of robbery in company, an offence which under Section 97(1) of the Crimes Act and which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. His Honour was also asked to take into account on a Form 1, three instances of shop lifting committed on 11 December 1998. Judge Moore described these offences as taking the familiar forms of taking goods from a retail store, being observed and arrested and some but not all of the goods recovered.
3    The principle offence occurred on 14 January. It’s circumstances were as follows. The victim, a Mrs Serafern was 72 years old and at home. The Applicant and a male co-offender knew her, the latter believing that she would have money in her house. On the morning of 14 January 199 the two offenders conceived a plan to rob her. They wore black and the co-offender covered his face with a mask and the Applicant pulled her hat down to minimise the chance of recognition. The Applicant gave the co-offender permission to take her meat clever. The Applicant herself took a Stanley knife “just in case” although she did not use it. They made observations of the premises and determined on a plan to gain entry.
4    They went to the back door and when Mrs Serafern opened it, the two offenders pulled it completely opened and went into the house. There were two children there also, one aged 6 and one aged 3½. The co-offender went up to Mrs Serafern, put his arm around her neck and presented the meat clever at her throat. Such was the extent of Mrs Serafern’s terror, that she had to be resuscitated afterwards with oxygen.
5    Inside the house the Applicant played a subsidiary role but did lift up Mrs Serafern’s clothing to obtain access to, and take, $200 concealed underneath. At that point the 6 year old girl who had been clinging on to Mrs Serafern in a terrified fashion, ran screaming from the house next door to her mother’s place. She was in a state…

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 Sok

Details

AGLC: R v Sok [2000] NSWCCA 121
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 121
Decision Date: 14 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v. Samantha Sok, the appellant sought leave to appeal against her sentence, which was imposed by Judge Moore. The appellant, Samantha Sok, was sentenced to penal servitude for five years, including a minimum term of three years, both periods dating from 14 January 1999 when she went into custody. The charge for which the sentence was imposed was of robbery in company, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. The court was required to decide whether the sentence imposed on Samantha Sok was excessive or not, considering her plea, her role in the offence, her age, background, and other subjective matters, including psychological problems, and the additional hardship her pregnancy in jail was causing.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the sentence imposed by Moore J was not excessive. The court noted that Samantha Sok's plea of guilty and her young age were encompassed within the seven characteristics to which reference was made in R v Henry. The court also considered the aggravating features of the offence, such as the presence of two offenders, the use of an offensive weapon, the offence occurring in the victim's home, the victim being 72 years old and needing resuscitation afterwards, and the offence being committed in the presence of and terrifying a 6-year-old child. The court further held that the combined effect of Samantha Sok's pregnancy and jail did not lead to the view that the sentence was excessive.

The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The court held that the sentence imposed by Moore J was not excessive, and the appeal was one which should be dismissed. The court's decision was based on the consideration of the mitigating and aggravating factors of the case, as well as the guidelines set out in R v Henry. The court's final orders were that leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Orders