Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Baker

Regina v Baker

Case [2002] NSWCCA 184 14 June 2002

Appeal

Sentencing

Judicial Review

Constitutional Validity

Separation of Powers

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 130 A Crim R 417

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Baker [2002] NSWCCA 184

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60474/01

HEARING DATE(S): 20/05/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Allan Baker

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp AJA at 1; Dunford J at 109; Bergin J at 110

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : L97/012

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Greg James J

COUNSEL : P R Zahra SC/A P Cook (Appellant)
M G Sexton SC/B K Baker (Attorney General (NSW))
R A Hulme (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Brezniak Neil-Smith & Co (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against refusal to have minimum and additional terms determined to replace life sentence - Sentencing Act 1989 s 13A(4) - whether judge erred in deciding that the appellant was eligible to make an application under the Act - whether the Judge applied wrong test for establishing "special reasons" pursuant to s 13A(3A) - meaning of "special reasons" - whether Sentencing Legislation Further Amendment Act 1997 No 6 invalidly vests functions in the Court incompatible with the exercise of Commonwealth judicial power by that Court - whether "special reasons" are too difficult to establish - whether Act usurps judicial power - whether legislation covering a small class of people is invalid - principles.

LEGISLATION CITED: Sentencing Act 1989
Sentencing Legislation Further Amendment Act 1997 No 6
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Kalajzich (1997) 94 A Crim R 41
United Mexican States v Cabal (2001) 75 ALJR 1663
O'Hare v DPP (2000) NSWSC 430
B v Gould and DPP (1993) 67 A Crim R 297
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
Kable v Director of Public Prosecututions (NSW) (1996) 189 CLR 51
R v Baker (NSWCCA, unreported, 23 May 1994)
Nicholas v The Queen (1998) 193 CLR 173
Chester v R (1988) 165 CLR 611
R v Moffatt [1998] 2 V.R. 229
Polyukhovich v The Commonwealth (1991) 172 CLR 501
Leeth v Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455
Liyanage v The Queen (1967) 1 AC 259

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

60474/01

IPP AJA
DUNFORD J
BERGIN J
Friday 14 June 2002

REGINA v Allan BAKER

FACTS

This is an appeal against the refusal by Greg James J to determine a minimum and additional term in lieu of a life sentence pursuant to s 13A(4) of the Sentencing Act 1989. On June 20 1974 the appellant Allan Baker (together with Kevin Garry Crump) was convicted of the murder of Mr Ian Lamb, conspiracy to murder Mrs Virginia Morse and two counts of malicious wounding with intent to prevent lawful apprehension. Taylor J sentenced each of the offenders to life imprisonment for the murder, life imprisonment for the conspiracy to murder and 15 years hard labour for each of the two counts of malicious wounding. When sentencing the appellant, Taylor J said, “I believe you should spend the rest of your lives in gaol and there…

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 Baker

Details

AGLC: Regina v Baker [2002] NSWCCA 184
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 184
Decision Date: 14 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Baker, the defendant appealed against the refusal of the Court to determine minimum and additional terms to replace his life sentence. The case involved the interpretation and application of the Sentencing Act 1989, specifically sections 13A(4) and 13A(3A). The central legal issues centred on whether the trial judge had erred in deciding that the appellant was eligible to make an application under the Act and whether the judge had applied the correct test for establishing "special reasons" as required by section 13A(3A) of the Act. The court also considered the meaning of "special reasons" and whether the Sentencing Legislation Further Amendment Act 1997 No 6 unconstitutionally vested functions in the Court that were incompatible with the exercise of Commonwealth judicial power. Furthermore, the court examined whether the term "special reasons" was too difficult to establish, whether the Act usurped judicial power, and whether legislation that applied to a small class of people was invalid.

The court began by clarifying the legislative framework and the criteria for determining "special reasons." It held that the trial judge had not erred in finding that the appellant was eligible to make an application under the Act. The court emphasised that the judge's task was to assess whether there were "special reasons" warranting a departure from the usual sentencing practices. The court further clarified that "special reasons" must be substantial and exceptional circumstances that justify a deviation from the general sentencing principles. In determining whether the trial judge had applied the correct test, the court found that the judge had considered the appropriate factors and did not misapply the law. The court also rejected the argument that the Act usurped judicial power, holding that it provided a clear legislative framework within which the court could exercise its judicial functions. Finally, the court concluded that the Act was not invalid on the ground that it applied to a small class of people, as it served a legitimate public purpose.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence. It confirmed that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and found no error in the determination of "special reasons." The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the legislative criteria and the substantial and exceptional nature of the circumstances required to warrant a departure from the usual sentencing practices. The decision underscored the principle that while the legislature may provide guidelines for sentencing, the final determination of "special reasons" remained a judicial function. The court's reasoning and outcome highlighted the delicate balance between legislative intent and judicial discretion in the sentencing process.

Orders