R v Teck Lee Lew - [2004] NSWCCA 320

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Teck Lee Lew [2004] NSWCCA 320

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/1880

HEARING DATE(S): 16/09/2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 21/09/2004

PARTIES:
Regina
Teck Lee Lew

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Kirby J Buddin J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70116/02

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Adams J

COUNSEL:
B Knox SC (Crown)
R Hulme SC (Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Crown)
S O'Connor (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - sentence appeal - accessory before the fact to murder - complicity in felony-murder - withdrawal from criminal enterprise not ultimately effective.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION:
Allow appeal against conviction for being an accessory before the fact to armed robbery on 22 May 2001. Quash the conviction and sentence in relation thereto. Refuse leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for being an accessory before the fact to attempted armed robbery on 14 May 2001. Grant leave to appeal against the sentence imposed for being an accessory before the fact to murder. Allow appeal (in part). Confirm the head sentence but quash the non-parole period. In lieu thereof fix a non-parole period of 10 years to commence on 5 July 2002 and to expire on 4 July 2012 at which time the applicant will be eligible for release to parole.The balance of term of the sentence is thus 4 years. The sentence itself will expire on 4 July 2016.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2004/1880
WOOD CJ at CL
KIRBY J
BUDDIN J
TUESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2004

REGINA v TECK LEE LEW

Judgment

WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Buddin J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour.
KIRBY J: I agree with Buddin J.
BUDDIN J: Teck Lee Lew (whom I shall refer to as the applicant) was jointly tried with David Ng. Ng was found guilty of the murder on 22 May 2001 of Nigel Stiffe. He was also found guilty of having at the same time robbed Mr Stiffe whilst being armed with a dangerous weapon.
The applicant was found guilty of being an accessory before the fact to the murder by Ng and a person by the name of Wai Kit Lo. He also pleaded guilty at the outset of the trial to being an accessory before the fact to the armed robbery (albeit upon the basis that the weapon was an offensive weapon and not a dangerous one). That count was charged as an alternative to the count of being an accessory before the fact to murder. The Crown declined to accept his plea in full discharge of that count in the indictment and accordingly the trial against the applicant proceeded in respect of what I shall refer to as the primary count. I shall shortly return to consider the significance of that fact in light of the jury’s verdict upon the primary count. The applicant also…

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 Teck Lee Lew

Details

AGLC: R v Teck Lee Lew [2004] NSWCCA 320
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 320
Decision Date: 21 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Teck Lee Lew, the appellant was found guilty of being an accessory before the fact to the murder of a man in Sydney. The dispute centred on the adequacy of the sentence imposed on the appellant for his role in the crime. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues the court had to decide involved the principles of sentencing in cases of complicity in a felony-murder, and whether the appellant's withdrawal from the criminal enterprise prior to the commission of the murder should mitigate his sentence.

The court examined the legal framework for sentencing in cases where the defendant was an accessory before the fact. It considered the appellant's level of involvement and whether his withdrawal from the crime could be deemed effective. The court held that while the appellant did attempt to withdraw from the criminal enterprise, this withdrawal was not effective in negating his culpability for the murder, as the felony-murder rule applied. This rule holds that anyone who assists in a felony that results in death can be held responsible for the death, regardless of whether they were present when the death occurred or intended for it to happen. The court also assessed the severity of the crime and the appellant's role in facilitating it.

Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate given his significant involvement in the criminal enterprise and the principles of justice and deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of holding individuals accountable for their role in serious criminal activities, even if they attempt to withdraw before the crime is completed.

Orders