R v Springer - [2009] NSWCCA 144

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Springer [2009] NSWCCA 144

HEARING DATE(S): 13 May 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; James J at 2; Simpson J at 53

DECISION: 1. Appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 16 October 2007 allowed.
2. Substitute for the non-parole period set by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 16 October 2007 a non-parole period of three years eight months.
3.The head sentence of four years six months imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 16 October 2007 confirmed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — Commonwealth offence — assistance — sentence reduced by reason of assistance — failure to provide assistance — Crown appeal — s 21E Crimes Act (Cth) — s 14A Criminal Appeal Act (NSW)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act (NSW)
Judiciary Act (Cth)

CASES CITED: R v YZ (1999) 162 ALR 265

PARTIES: Regina
SPRINGER, Patrick

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/4996

COUNSEL: W Abraham QC - Appellant
No appearance - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Commowealth Director of Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Court of Criminal Appeal

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/4996

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16 October 2007

2006/4996

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
JAMES J
SIMPSON J
MONDAY 25 MAY 2009

R v SPRINGER, Patrick

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with James J.

2 JAMES J: This is an appeal by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s 21E of the Crimes Act (Cth) against the inadequacy of a sentence imposed on the respondent Patrick Springer that was reduced because of the respondent’s undertaking to cooperate with law enforcement agencies, on the ground that the respondent failed to cooperate in accordance with his undertaking. By virtue of s 68 of the Judiciary Act (Cth) certain provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act (NSW), including s 14A, apply to the hearing and determination of the appeal.

3 When the matter was called for hearing in this Court there was no appearance before the Court by the respondent or anyone on his behalf. Section 14A of the Criminal Appeal Act provides that a Crown appeal may be dealt with and the Court of Criminal Appeal may pass sentence, in the absence of the respondent to the appeal, if the Court is satisfied (a) that the respondent has been given notice of the date on which the appeal is to be heard and (b) it would not be unjust to deal with the appeal and pass sentence in the absence of the respondent. On the basis of evidence to which I will refer later in this judgment, I am satisfied that the respondent was given notice of the date on which the appeal was to be heard (13 May 2009) and that it would not be unjust to deal with the appeal and pass sentence in the absence of the respondent. Consequently, the Court can deal with the…

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 Springer

Details

AGLC: R v Springer [2009] NSWCCA 144
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 144
Decision Date: 25 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Springer, the appellant, Springer, was convicted of a Commonwealth offence and sentenced by the District Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on the sentencing adjustments that should have been made in light of Springer's assistance to authorities. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing that the court had not adequately recognised the extent of Springer's assistance, which should have resulted in a more significant reduction in the sentence.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve included the interpretation and application of section 21E of the Crimes Act and the principles governing sentencing adjustments for assistance under section 14A of the Criminal Appeal Act. The Crown contended that the trial judge had incorrectly assessed the value of the assistance provided by Springer, leading to an insufficient reduction in the sentence. The court had to determine whether the trial judge's assessment was correct or if the sentence should have been further reduced.

The court considered the evidence of the assistance provided by Springer and the principles for determining the appropriate discount. It found that the trial judge had considered the assistance but had not appropriately quantified the discount it warranted. The court determined that the assistance provided by Springer warranted a greater reduction in sentence than the trial judge had applied. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, quashed the sentence, and remitted the matter to the District Court for resentencing. The final orders required the District Court to re-evaluate the sentence taking into account the extent of Springer's assistance.

Orders