R v Suey - [2005] NSWCCA 22

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Suey [2005] NSWCCA 22

FILE NUMBER(S):
1998/3390

HEARING DATE(S): 03/02/05

JUDGMENT DATE: 03/02/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Ronald James SUEY

JUDGMENT OF: Hunt AJA Grove J James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 97/31/0200

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Morgan DCJ

COUNSEL:
C Davenport - Appellant
J Bennett SC - Crown

SOLICITORS:
Sparo's - Appellant
SE O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - matter referred to Court for review of sentences past following inquiry - abduction, aggravated sexual assault and breaking and entering - applicant stopped one of his co-offenders from attacking the complainant with a wheel brace - this matter not known to sentencing judge - whether if sentencing judge had known it would have affected her findings on contrition - whether any basis for parity argument

LEGISLATION CITED:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act
Crimes Act
Criminal Appeal Act

DECISION:
The sentences imposed by her Honour Judge Morgan should stand.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

1998/3390
HUNT AJA
GROVE J
JAMES J
THURSDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2005

REGINA v Ronald James SUEY

Judgment

HUNT AJA: Mr Justice James will give the first judgment.
JAMES J: This matter was referred to the Court of Criminal Appeal by his Honour Greg James J for a review of the sentences imposed on Ronald James Suey (whom I will refer to as “the applicant”) by her Honour Judge Morgan in the District Court on 18 September 1998.
In a trial conducted before her Honour and a jury in September 1998 the jury found the applicant guilty on all nine charges in the indictment which had been presented against him. All of the offences had been committed on the night of 29 and 30 November 1996 in a remote rural area of New South Wales. The victim of most, but not all, of the offences was a fifteen-year-old girl, whom I will refer to simply as “the complainant”.
The various charges in the indictment were:
Count 1. A charge of possessing an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely, armed robbery. This was an offence under s 33B(1)(a) of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty was imprisonment for twelve years.
Count 2. A charge of breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing a serious indictable offence therein being assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in circumstances of special aggravation being that the applicant was armed with an offensive weapon (a shotgun) and the applicant maliciously inflicted actual bodily harm upon the victim, who was a young man named Steven Canfell. This was an offence under s 112(3) of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty was imprisonment for twenty-five years.
Count 3. A charge of kidnapping under s 90A of the Crimes Act (since repealed) for which the maximum penalty was imprisonment for twenty years. The victim of this offence was the complainant.
Counts 4 to 9 in the indictment…

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 Suey

Details

AGLC: R v Suey [2005] NSWCCA 22
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 22
Decision Date: 3 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Suey involved the defendant who was convicted of multiple offences, including abduction, aggravated sexual assault, and breaking and entering. The matter was referred to the court for review of the sentences passed following an inquiry into the circumstances of the offence. One of the key issues was whether the sentencing judge would have reached different findings on the matter of contrition had she been aware that the defendant had stopped one of his co-offenders from attacking the complainant with a wheel brace. Another issue was whether there was any basis for an argument of parity between the sentences passed for the various offences.

The court considered the impact of the unknown fact on the sentencing judge's findings of contrition. It was found that the defendant's actions in stopping the attack could have been considered a mitigating factor in the sentencing process. However, the court held that the unknown fact did not necessarily mean that the sentencing judge would have reached different findings on contrition. The court emphasised that the sentencing judge had considered all the relevant factors in imposing the sentences and that the unknown fact did not alter the overall circumstances of the case. The court also rejected the argument of parity, finding that the sentences imposed were appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offences committed.

The court concluded that there was no basis for a parity argument and that the sentences passed were appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offences committed. The court found that the unknown fact did not necessarily mean that the sentencing judge would have reached different findings on contrition, and that the sentences imposed were proportionate to the crimes committed. The court did not alter the sentences passed by the sentencing judge.

There were no final orders made by the court. The sentences passed by the sentencing judge remained unchanged.

Orders