1. In the case of the respondent S Y, dismiss the Crown appeal; 2. In the case of the respondent K S: - (a) The appeal of the Crown is allowed; (b) The sentence imposed by Sides DCJ relating to the offence of armed robbery pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and imposed on 23 May 2003 is quashed and in lieu thereof, Impose a sentence of imprisonment for 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years. Both such periods to commence on 30 October 2001. The non-parole priod is to expire on 29 October 2004.
CATCHWORDS:
Drug addiction - self-medication - leniency - parity - discount for plea
G. Rowling - Crown R. Button - Respondent S Y H. Dhanji - Respondent K S
SOLICITORS:
C. K. Smith - DPP R. Hill - Respondents S Y and K S
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2/21/3280 2/21/3280; 2/21/3379
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Sides QC DCJ
60222/03 60223/03
IPP JA WHEALY J HOWIE J
WEDNESDAY 15 October 2003
REGINA v S Y
REGINA v K S
Judgment
1 IPP JA: I agree with Whealy J and Howie J.
2 WHEALY J: There are before the Court two Crown appeals each alleging manifest inadequacy of sentence. The appeals arise out of charges against each respondent relating to the robbery of the Abruzzi Sports Club Limited at Wetherill Park in the early hours of the morning of 6 August 2001. At the outset of the hearing of the appeals, orders were made requiring that each respondent be described by a pseudonym.
3 The first appeal relates to the respondent S Y. He was convicted on 23 May 2003 at Campbelltown District Court by his Honour Judge Sides QC. The respondent had first pleaded guilty before Judge Coleman on 23 September 2003 to three charges. The first was a charge of robbery armed with an offensive weapon [s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 – maximum penalty 20 years]. The second and third related to assaults carried out at the time of the robbery. Pleas to these latter charges were accepted by the Crown in full discharge of other matters in the indictment. The respondent had also asked the Court to take into account on a Form 1 two…
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 SY
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v SY [2003] NSWCCA 291
Case
[2003] NSWCCA 291
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, SY, was charged with drug-related offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The prosecution alleged that SY was in possession of a prohibited substance and had the intent to supply it. The defence argued that SY had been self-medicating with the drug due to chronic pain and that the charges were unjust. The court had to determine whether SY's actions constituted an offence and if so, what the appropriate sentence would be.
The legal issues before the court were whether SY's possession of the drug constituted an offence under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), and if SY was entitled to a discount in sentence for entering a plea of guilty. The court had to consider whether SY's self-medication could be a defence to the charge and whether the discount for plea was appropriate in this case.
The court found that SY's possession of the drug did constitute an offence under the Act. However, the court acknowledged that SY had been self-medicating due to chronic pain. The court also considered the principle of parity, which requires that similarly situated offenders be treated equally. The court decided that SY was entitled to a discount in sentence for entering a plea of guilty, but the discount was limited due to the seriousness of the offence. The court sentenced SY to a term of imprisonment, taking into account the discount for plea and the need to deter similar offending.
The final orders of the court were that SY be sentenced to imprisonment for a period of two years, with a non-parole period of one year. The court also ordered that SY be subject to a drug treatment program during his period of imprisonment. The court acknowledged the difficult circumstances of SY's case, but emphasised the need to uphold the law and deter drug-related offending.