Legal Research
Cases
R v Sparos

R v Sparos

Case [2002] NSWCCA 52 12 March 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Sparos [2002] NSWCCA 52

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60776/01

HEARING DATE(S): 04/03/2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 March 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Luke John Sparos

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA at 1; Dowd J at 2; Barr J at 61

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/3199

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sides DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr LMB Lamprati- Crown
Mr SJ Odgers SC- Respondent

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor- Crown

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence - Crown submissions to Sentencing Judge - Young offender - Suspended sentence - Court discretion to dismiss appeal - Matters taken into account - Least sentence properly imposed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985

CASES CITED:
Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561.
Comptroller-General of Customs v D'Aquino Bros Pty Ltd (1996) 135 ALR 649.
C, S and T (Unreported, NSWCCA, 12 October 1989).
DPP v Waack (2001) 121 A Crim R 134.
Edwards (1993) 67 A Crim R 487.
Everett v R (1994) 181 CLR 295.
GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112.
Hayes (1987) 29 A Crim R 452.
R v Bachelor (1952) 36 CAR 64.
R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63.
R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152.
R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121.
R v Blocki (1991) 56 SASR 250.
R v Cacciola (Unreported, NSWCCA, 15 October 1998).
R v Camilleri (Unreported, NSWCCA, 8 February 1990).
R v Clark (Unreported, NSWCCA, 15 March 1990).
R v Crotty (Unreported, NSWCCA, 28 February 1994).
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349.
R v Howland [1999] NSWCCA 10.
R v J (1992) 59 SASR 145.
R v Jermyn (1985) 2 NSWLR 194 .
R v Lattouf (Unreported, NSWCCA, 12 December 1996).
R v Martin (Unreported, NSWCCA, 19 March 1992).
R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235.
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368.
R v Perese [2001] NSWCCA 478.
R v Rose (Unreported, NSWCCA, 23 May 1996).
R v Rushby (1977) 1 NSWLR 594.
R v Tait and Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473.
R v Thompson (Unreported, NSWCCA, 4 April 1991).
R v White (1981) 28 SASR 9.
R v Wilton (1981) 28 SASR 362.
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108.

DECISION: 1. Crown appeal upheld; 2. Sentence including the fine imposed be quashed; 3. Respondent sentenced to a fixed term of one year, to commence on 12 March 2002, and to expire on 11 March 2003; and 4. Respondent fined $3,500.

60776/01

STEIN JA
DOWD J
BARR J
12 March 2002

Regina v Luke John SPAROS

Judgment

1 STEIN JA: I agree with Dowd J.

2 DOWD J: This is a Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence imposed by Sides QC DCJ on 19 October 2001, on the sole ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The respondent was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment suspended on him entering into a…

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 Sparos

Details

AGLC: R v Sparos [2002] NSWCCA 52
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 52
Decision Date: 12 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sparos involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Sparos. The dispute centred on the perceived inadequacy of the sentence, which was a suspended sentence, given to Sparos by the original sentencing judge. The appeal was heard by the higher court, where the Crown argued that the sentence was too lenient and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of Sparos's criminal conduct.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the scope of the court's discretion to dismiss an appeal against sentence, particularly in cases involving young offenders. The Crown's submissions to the Sentencing Judge raised questions about the factors that the court should consider when determining whether to impose a suspended sentence. The court also needed to consider the matters that the Sentencing Judge had taken into account when imposing the original sentence and whether the least sentence properly imposed was a suspended sentence.

The court's reasoning and outcome in this case were based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal principles and the specific circumstances of Sparos's case. The court noted that the Sentencing Judge had considered all the relevant matters and had exercised their discretion to impose a suspended sentence. The court found that the Sentencing Judge had acted within their discretion and had not erred in law or fact. The Crown's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court also noted that the least sentence properly imposed in this case was a suspended sentence, given Sparos's age and other mitigating factors.

Orders