Regina v Angeles - [2001] NSWCCA 515

CITATION: Regina v Angeles [2001] NSWCCA 515

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60715/01

HEARING DATE(S): 7 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 December 2001

PARTIES :

The Crown
Jose Angeles (Appl)

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Sully J at 2; McClellan J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0522

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Herron DCJ

COUNSEL : R D Ellis (Crown)
I H McClintock (Appl)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Belen Oag (Appl)

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING - appeal against sentence - whether lack of parity in sentence creating a "justifiable sense of grievance"

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 90A

CASES CITED:
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
R v Pritchard & McDonald (unreported, NSWCCA, 22 April 1993)
R v Stack (unreported, NSWCCA, 17 April 1997)
R v Diamond (unreported, 18 February 1993)

DECISION: See para 44

60715/01

MASON P
SULLY J
McCLELLAN J

THURSDAY, 13 DECEMBER 2001

REGINA v Jose ANGELES

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with McClellan J.

2 SULLY J: I agree with McClellan J.

3 McCLELLAN J: The applicant, Jose Angeles, pleaded guilty before his Honour Judge Herron to a charge of detaining a person for advantage, contrary to s 90A of the Crimes Act 1900. As the victim was not injured, the maximum penalty was fourteen years full time imprisonment. His Honour imposed a term of imprisonment of three years full time custody and provided a non parole period of fifteen months.

4 The offence was committed when a plan was conceived by Zhihang Li, Ping Fai Chin and Remi Chui to kidnap and ransom a wealthy Chinese student, Victor Liu.

5 The victim was abducted on 20 May 2000 from his home at Lurline Bay and held for ransom. He was rescued by police on 26 May 2000.

6 The facts before the sentencing judge were that Zhihang Li had worked as a cleaner at the home of the victim, Victor Liu. He told Chui and Chin, of the victim’s wealth and situation. An agreement was made between those three to kidnap the victim for the purpose of obtaining a ransom of AUS$8 million.

7 Chui’s part of the arrangement was to recruit the “staff” necessary to carry out the abduction. Chui contacted Jose Tomas and then Chui and Tomas contacted the applicant and asked him to “drive Chin and Li to do some daily routines”. He was to be rewarded but an exact figure was not settled. He was also to be paid his travel expenses, such as petrol. The applicant initially declined the offer but later agreed to be involved.

8 Some weeks before the kidnapping, the applicant met up with Jeff Mendoza, Patrick Elhalabi, Chin, Li and Chui at Thommo’s Bar at Hurstville. The applicant was aware that the kidnapping was being discussed between Chin, Li and Chui but could not hear the details of what was being discussed as they spoke in a foreign language.

9 There were at least two occasions when…

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 Regina v Angeles

Details

AGLC: Regina v Angeles [2001] NSWCCA 515
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 515
Decision Date: 13 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Angeles was heard in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, where the appellant, Angeles, was appealing against the sentence he received for a crime committed. The nature of the dispute was the perceived lack of parity in sentencing, which Angeles claimed created a justifiable sense of grievance. Angeles argued that the sentence he received was disproportionately harsher than sentences handed down to co-offenders in similar circumstances, which he believed was unjust and warranted an appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed on Angeles was indeed disproportionate and whether it created a justifiable sense of grievance. The central legal issue was whether the lack of parity in sentencing, where Angeles' sentence was harsher than that of his co-offenders, was significant enough to warrant a reduction in his sentence. The court needed to weigh the principle of parity in sentencing against other relevant sentencing considerations, such as the severity of the offence and the need for deterrence.

In its judgment, the court acknowledged the importance of parity in sentencing, but held that the appellant's sentence was not so disproportionate as to create a justifiable sense of grievance. The court found that the disparity in sentences did not reach the threshold of unfairness required to warrant a reduction in Angeles' sentence. The court also emphasised the need to consider the specific circumstances of each case, including the nature and gravity of the offence, when determining appropriate sentences. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and Angeles' original sentence stood.

No further orders were made.

Orders