R v Sypher - [2020] NSWDC 528

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sypher [2020] NSWDC 528
Hearing dates: 2 April 2020,
15 & 22 June 2020
Decision date: 22 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:
Convicted.
Special circumstances found – 1st time in prison, need for longer period on supervised parole to assist with drug rehabilitation within the community and her problems in relation to mental health.
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years comprising a NPP of 1 year and 9 months to commence on 30 June 2019 and to expire on 29 March 2021, and a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months to commence on 30 March 2021 and to expire on 29 June 2022.

Catchwords:
CRIME - Public justice offences — sentence - do an act with intent to pervert course of justice – seriousness of offence - importance of protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system - deterrence - role - comparison with co-offenders – parity – aggravating features – offences committed while on bail - subjective matters

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Cross v R [2016] NSWCCA 214
Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87
Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 88
Marinellis v R [2006] NSWCCA 307
Imbornone [2017] NSWCCA 144
R v Einfeld (2009) NSWSC 119
R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79
R v Kim NSWCCA [5 September 1996 unreported
R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 392.
R v Reid [2006] NSWCCA 151

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Anissa Sypher
Representation: Counsel:
Defence: Mr A Williams
Solicitors:
Crown: Mr D Waldmann, Mr N Leach
Defence: Ms A Chauvet

File Number(s): 2019/00163144

Judgment

Anissa Sypher appears for sentence in respect of a single offence; that is, doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act. The maximum penalty available for such an offence is 14 years’ imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period applicable.
The actual text of the charge, as I understand it, is between 9th May 2019 and 24 May 2019 at Kingsgrove in the State of New South Wales did conspire with Christopher Heaven, Tamsin Elliff and Jaya Daetz to do an act with the intention of perverting the course of justice.
The offender entered a plea of guilty on 6 February 2020 at the Central Local Court and is accordingly entitled to having her plea accepted as being at the earliest opportunity which entitles her to a 25% discount for the utility of the plea alone as provided by s 25D of the EAGP scheme.
The facts are agreed and are as follows:

1. The co-offenders are Christopher Heaven, Anissa Sypher and Tamsin Elliff.

2. Heaven and Sypher were in a domestic relationship.

3. Elliff was in a domestic relationship with Jaya Daetz.

4. Daetz had known Heaven and Sypher for some time, however, Elliff only met Heaven and Sypher for the first time in February…

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 Sypher

Details

AGLC: R v Sypher [2020] NSWDC 528
Case: [2020] NSWDC 528
Decision Date: 22 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The accused was convicted of various offences including perverting the course of justice. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The accused had committed the offences while on bail for other criminal matters, and the court had to consider the seriousness of the offences, the need to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the role of deterrence in sentencing.

The court had to decide whether to find special circumstances existed, which would increase the likelihood of the accused receiving a longer sentence. The accused's age, first-time incarceration, and need for drug rehabilitation and mental health support were considered in determining whether special circumstances existed. The court also considered the accused's role in comparison to co-offenders and the importance of parity in sentencing.

The court found that special circumstances did exist, and the accused was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years. The sentence included a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months, and a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months. The court emphasised the importance of the accused receiving drug rehabilitation and mental health support during her sentence.

The final orders were that the accused was convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months. The sentence was backdated to the date of the accused's arrest, and she was to be released on supervised parole on 29 June 2022.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted.

Special circumstances found – 1st time in prison, need for longer period on supervised parole to assist with drug rehabilitation within the community and her problems in relation to mental health.

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years comprising a NPP of 1 year and 9 months to commence on 30 June 2019 and to expire on 29 March 2021, and a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months to commence on 30 March 2021 and to expire on 29 June 2022.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Sypher [2020] NSWDC 528
Hearing dates:	2 April 2020, 15 & 22 June 2020
Decision date:	22 June 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	King SC DCJ
Decision:	Convicted. Special circumstances found – 1st time in prison, need for longer period on supervised parole to assist with drug rehabilitation within the community and her problems in relation to mental health. Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 3 years comprising a NPP of 1 year and 9 months to commence on 30 June 2019 and to expire on 29 March 2021, and a balance of term of 1 year and 3 months to commence on 30 March 2021 and to expire on 29 June 2022.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Public justice offences — sentence - do an act with intent to pervert course of justice – seriousness of offence - importance of protecting the integrity of the criminal justice system - deterrence - role - comparison with co-offenders – parity – aggravating features – offences committed while on bail - subjective matters
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Cross v R [2016] NSWCCA 214 Einfeld v R [2010] NSWCCA 87 Khoury v R [2011] NSWCCA 88 Marinellis v R [2006] NSWCCA 307 Imbornone [2017] NSWCCA 144 R v Einfeld (2009) NSWSC 119 R v Harrison [2001] NSWCCA 79 R v Kim NSWCCA [5 September 1996 unreported R v Taouk (1992) 65 A Crim R 392. R v Reid [2006] NSWCCA 151
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Anissa Sypher
Representation:	Counsel: Defence: Mr A Williams Solicitors: Crown: Mr D Waldmann, Mr N Leach Defence: Ms A Chauvet
File Number(s):	2019/00163144