REGINA v David Fields - [2002] NSWCCA 523

CITATION: REGINA v David FIELDS [2002] NSWCCA 523 revised - 5/02/2003

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60462/02

HEARING DATE(S): 18 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 December 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA v David FIELDS

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; James J at 31; Dunford J at 32

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/0147

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Puckeridge DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: G I O Rowling
Respondent: G Whitehead/unrepresented

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Criminal appeal - sentence appeal - Crown appeal - larceny. (ND)

DECISION: See par 30.

CCA 60462/02

MASON P
JAMES J
DUNFORD J
Wednesday 18 December 2002

REGINA v David FIELDS

Judgment

1 MASON P: This is a Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence pursuant to Notice of Appeal filed on 15 October 2002 and notified on 10 September 2002.

2 On 6 May 2002 the respondent entered a plea of guilty to a charge of stealing. The plea was entered on the day fixed for trial in the District Court and after an adjournment application had been refused. The respondent adhered to that plea when he came before Puckeridge DCJ for sentencing on 5 September 2002.

3 The charge was that on 6 October 1999 at Auburn the respondent did steal certain property, namely 840 cartons of beer, the property of Linfox Pty Limited. The offence carried a maximum penalty of 5 years’ imprisonment. The respondent also asked that a further offence be taken into account under the provisions of s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999. That offence involved stealing an identical quantity of beer some five days earlier on 1 October 1999.

4 The learned judge sentenced the respondent to a term of imprisonment for 14 months to be served by way of periodic detention. He declined to set a non-parole period, or to find special circumstances pursuant to s 44 of the said Act, and his Honour ordered the respondent to pay compensation in the sum of $40,504 being the wholesale value of the stolen beer at the rate of $1,000 per month. His Honour observed that $13,000 had already been paid as at that date.

5 The facts out of which the charge to which the respondent pleaded guilty are as follows:

In October 1999 the respondent was in the employ of Linfox Pty Ltd as a maintenance man at its yard at Manchester Road, Auburn; from the yard, which was called the ‘Clyde Yard’, Linfox Pty Ltd managed the distribution of beer products on behalf of Carlton & United Breweries throughout the Sydney Metropolitan area.

On 6 October 1999 arrangements were made for a truck the property of Linfox Pty Ltd to be weighed on a public weighbridge in order to change its registration from Victoria to New South Wales and the respondent was asked to take it to be weighed both laden and unladen.

On that date the respondent arranged for the truck to be loaded with 12 pallets each bearing 70…

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 David Fields

Details

AGLC: Regina v David Fields [2002] NSWCCA 523
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 523
Decision Date: 18 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v David Fields was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the respondent, David Fields, had been found guilty of larceny. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate. Fields, on the other hand, did not contest the appeal on the grounds of sentence and instead focused on the validity of the conviction. The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the trial judge erred in assessing the seriousness of the offence and consequently in imposing a sentence that the Crown deemed too lenient.

The court examined the sentencing principles applicable to larceny, considering the circumstances of the offence, the offender's criminal history, and the need for general deterrence. The trial judge had taken into account the absence of any previous convictions and the personal circumstances of Fields, such as his employment status and family responsibilities. The Crown argued that these factors, while relevant, did not outweigh the need for a sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime and serve as a deterrent. The court had to balance the competing considerations of punishment, rehabilitation, and deterrence in determining whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

After reviewing the evidence and the trial judge's reasoning, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The trial judge had carefully considered all relevant factors and provided adequate reasons for the sentence imposed. The court upheld the original sentence, affirming that it was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders