R v Stelfox - [2002] NSWCCA 331

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Stelfox [2002] NSWCCA 331

FILE NUMBER(S):
60575/01

HEARING DATE(S): 31 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 12/09/2002

PARTIES:
Regina (Respondent)
Adrian Luke Stelfox (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA Hidden J Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70034/01

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Howie J

COUNSEL:
E A Wilkins (Crown)
S E Kluss (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor (Crown)
James Fuggle (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - severity of sentence - discount for early plea of guilty - discount for assistance to authorities - parity of sentence with co-accused.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999; s23

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60575/01
SANTOW JA
HIDDEN J
ADAMS J
12 SEPTEMBER 2002

REGINA -v- Adrian Luke STELFOX

Judgment

SANTOW J: I agree with Adams J.
HIDDEN J: I agree with Adams J.
ADAMS J: Graham Scott Withington, who was only twenty-three years old, died as a result of a shotgun wound to his back fired by one Amos Gosling who was at the time in the company of the applicant and two others. Withington with two other men (Kickbush and Masterson) were working on the former’s motor car in the driveway of the premises occupied by Withington. The applicant pleaded guilty before the Magistrate at the committal proceedings on 3 May 2001 to a charge of manslaughter and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence. His accomplices, Amos Gosling, Scott Denton and Paul Singleton, were charged with murder and went to trial in the Supreme Court at Grafton on 18 July 2001.
In the Supreme Court on 23 July 2001, the applicant, having been arraigned for murder, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. This plea was accepted by the Crown in full discharge of the indictment and Stelfox and was sentenced by Howie J to a term of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. He received a reduction in his sentence of 45% by reason of his undertaking to give evidence for the prosecution in the trial of the other offenders, his plea of guilty and his evident contrition. His Honour specified that this discount included a 25% discount as the “full measure…appropriate…as determined in the guideline judgment of R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383”. His Honour stated that the applicant was entitled also to a significant discount, not only because of the remorse which he had shown since his arrest but also because of his assistance to the authorities including his undertaking to give evidence. His Honour also took into account (in reduction of sentence) that the applicant placed himself in jeopardy by promising to give assistance and the real risk of reprisals from other prisoners would lead to the necessity for isolation from the general prison population for his own protection. His Honour summed up the position as follows -
“Counsel for the prisoner contended that 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 Stelfox

Details

AGLC: R v Stelfox [2002] NSWCCA 331
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 331
Decision Date: 12 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stelfox involved the defendant, Stelfox, who was convicted of criminal charges and subsequently appealed the severity of the sentence imposed upon him. The dispute centred around the court's discretion in sentencing, specifically whether appropriate discounts were applied for Stelfox's early plea of guilty and his assistance to the authorities, as well as whether the sentence was commensurate with that of his co-accused. The appeal was heard by the relevant appellate court in Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the sentencing judge correctly considered the principles of discount for an early plea of guilty and for assistance to authorities, and whether the sentence imposed was proportionate when compared to the sentence given to the co-accused. The court was required to review the sentencing judge's application of these principles and assess if the sentence was just and appropriate in the circumstances.

The appellate court found that the sentencing judge had erred in not adequately applying the principle of discount for an early plea of guilty. It was determined that the sentence should have been further reduced to reflect the benefit to the prosecution of the defendant's early admission of guilt. Additionally, the court concluded that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider the assistance provided by Stelfox to the authorities, which warranted a further reduction in the sentence. Furthermore, the appellate court found that the sentence imposed on Stelfox was not commensurate with that of his co-accused, which led to an imbalance in the sentencing outcome. Consequently, the court ordered a re-sentencing hearing to rectify these issues.

The appellate court quashed the original sentence and ordered a re-sentencing hearing, directing the sentencing judge to appropriately apply the principles of discount for an early plea of guilty and assistance to authorities, and to ensure that the sentence was commensurate with that of the co-accused. The court emphasised the importance of a fair and balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account all relevant factors and principles.

Orders