R v Tooth - [2000] NSWCCA 482

CITATION: R v Tooth [2000] NSWCCA 482

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60298/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 20/11/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 December 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v William Richard Tooth

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 1 & 70; Carruthers AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/41/0046;
96/41/0046; 99/11/0283

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL : (Applicant): R Toner SC / K R Newell
(Crown): P G Berman SC

SOLICITORS: (Crown): S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - severity appeal - obtaining a financial advantage by deception etc - whethr sentences manifestly excessive - relationship between discount for assistance to the authorities and special circumstances considered.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Justices Act 1902
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
R v Jalalaty (CCA, unreported, 2 April 1997)
R v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v S (2000) 111 A Crim R 225
R v Clarke (1995) 78 A Crim R 226
R v Henry (1992) 28 NSWLR 348

DECISION: See paragraph 69

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60298/00

BARR J

CARRUTHERS AJ

Friday, 22 December 2000

REGINA v William Richard TOOTH
JUDGMENT
1    BARR J: I agree with Carruthers AJ.
2    CARRUTHERS AJ: William Richard Tooth seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by her Honour Judge Ainslie-Wallace at the Sydney District Court on 5 May 2000.
3    On 5 April 2000 the applicant pleaded guilty to counts 1 to 4 and 6 to 9 of an Indictment containing 9 counts. He pleaded not guilty to the 5th count and the Crown accepted the pleas of guilty in full discharge of the Indictment.
4 Each of the 8 relevant charges was under s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 (the Act) (obtaining a financial advantage by deception). That section provides a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
5    On that date her Honour was also asked to take into account 23 matters under a Form 1 constituting 6 charges of using a false instrument, 9 charges of using a copy of a false instrument and one charge of dishonestly concealing a material fact.
6    These matters were referred to in the sentencing proceedings as “the Wollongong matters”.
7    On that date her Honour also had before her 2 charges which had been committed to the District Court pursuant to the provisions of s 51A of the Justices Act 1902. They were both charges of making a false statement. In addition, there were 23 matters on a second Form 1 which her Honour was asked to take into consideration being 18 charges of obtaining a benefit by deception, one of being an accessory before the fact to making a false statement, two of making a false statement, one of using a false instrument and one of receiving.
8    These matters were referred to as “the Sydney matters.”
9    The offences contained within the Indictment covered…

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 Tooth

Details

AGLC: R v Tooth [2000] NSWCCA 482
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 482
Decision Date: 22 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tooth involved the defendant appealing against the severity of a sentence imposed by the court. The defendant had been found guilty of obtaining a financial advantage through deception. The appeal was heard in the higher court where the defendant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the defendant raised issues regarding the relationship between the discount for assistance to the authorities and any special circumstances that might have warranted a more lenient sentence.

The court was required to consider several legal issues. Firstly, whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence. Secondly, the court needed to assess the relevance and effect of the discount for assistance provided to the authorities, as well as any special circumstances that could potentially mitigate the sentence. The central issue was whether these factors warranted a re-evaluation of the severity of the sentence.

In delivering its decision, the court carefully examined the evidence and arguments presented. The court acknowledged the defendant's cooperation with the authorities, which had resulted in a discount to the sentence. However, the court also considered the gravity of the offence and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence, while harsh, was justified given the circumstances. The court found that the discount for assistance did not render the sentence manifestly excessive, and that any special circumstances had already been adequately considered in the original sentencing process. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders