Regina v Clayton - [2000] NSWCCA 311

CITATION: Regina v Clayton [2000] NSWCCA 311

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60811/99

HEARING DATE(S): 4 August 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 August 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Regie Clayton

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J at 1 ,18; Sperling J at 2-17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/2032

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : O'Reilly DCJ

COUNSEL :
J Manuell
(Applicant)
R D Ellis
(Crown)

SOLICITORS:
D J Humphreys
(Applicant)
S E O'Connor
(Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal against sentence - query as to relevance of alternative of summary proceedings in Local Court - otherwise no question of principle.

CASES CITED:
Regina v Crombie (1999) NSWCCA 297.

DECISION: Sentence set aside - orders made - see paragraph 16 and 17.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA60811/99

NEWMAN J
SPERLING J
Friday 4 August 2000

REGINA V CLAYTON
JUDGMENT

1    NEWMAN J: I will ask Sperling J to deliver the first judgment in this matter.

2    SPERLING J: On 10 December 1999, the applicant was sentenced to penal servitude for a period of one year and six months commencing on 10 December 1999, consisting of a minimum term of one year and an additional term of six months, on a charge of stealing from the person. The offence occurred on 12 October 1998.

3    The applicant was as at 12 October 1998 eighteen years of age and he was on probation under the supervision of the Juvenile Justice Office, following three stealing matters dealt with in the Children’s Court.

4    The sentencing judge took into account two further offences which occurred between 12 October 1998 and 10 December 1999. On 2 March 1999, the applicant stole a wallet containing $25 and various cards. On 13 August 1999, he was living in a youth refuge and assaulted another person residing there occasioning actual bodily harm. The charge apparently arose out of an altercation in which the applicant was also injured.

5    In relation to the offence committed on 12 October 1998, the applicant was initially charged with robbery in company to which he pleaded not guilty. However, the Crown subsequently amended the indictment to steal from the person to which the applicant pleaded guilty.

6    Having been remanded on bail to appear for sentence on 2 September 1998 before a District Court judge, it transpired that the judge was part-heard in a trial that day and the applicant’s solicitor also wanted to explore the possibility of obtaining medical evidence. The sentence hearing was adjourned and a further condition was imposed on the applicant in relation to bail, namely, that he not only report to the Probation Service but that he obey the direction of the Service throughout the period of the adjournment.

7    During the discussion which took place on that occasion, there was mention of a Griffith remand but, as I read the transcript, this was not mentioned in the sense that, if the applicant complied with his bail conditions, a non-custodial sentence would be imposed.

8    In the…

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 Clayton

Details

AGLC: Regina v Clayton [2000] NSWCCA 311
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 311
Decision Date: 4 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Clayton was a case heard in the High Court of Australia, where Clayton appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Clayton was convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal was not about the conviction itself but rather the length of the sentence. Clayton argued that the sentence was excessive and disproportionate given the nature of the offence and the mitigating factors present in the case.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of the case, and whether the Supreme Court had given sufficient consideration to the alternative of summary proceedings in the Local Court. The court was required to determine if the sentence imposed was a just and appropriate punishment for the offence committed, taking into account the principles of sentencing in Australia. The court also needed to consider whether the Supreme Court had adequately explored the possibility of a lesser sentence that could have been imposed in the Local Court.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was not manifestly excessive and that the court had considered the principles of sentencing, including the deterrence and rehabilitation of the offender. The court held that there was no question of principle in the case, and that the Supreme Court had correctly exercised its discretion in imposing the sentence. The alternative of summary proceedings in the Local Court was not relevant in this case, as the offence committed was indictable and required a higher court to impose an appropriate sentence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by the court.

Orders