Regina v F.F - [2000] NSWCCA 493

CITATION: Regina v F.F. [2000] NSWCCA 493

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60229/00

HEARING DATE(S): 24/11/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 November 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v F.F.

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 43; Carruthers AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/71/0010

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL : (Applicant): J Manuell
(Crown): P Hock

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

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - severity appeal - juvenile - whether judge erred in determining that the matter should be dealt with according to law.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Children's (Detention Centres) Act
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED:
R v WKR (1993) 32 NSWLR 447
R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112
Wilcox (CCA, unreported, 15 August 1979)
Bellavia (CCA, unreported, 16 August, 1980)
Broad (CCA, unreported, 30 March 1984)
C, S & T (CCA, unreported, 12 October 1989)
R v Crombie [1999] NSWCCA 297
Elomar [2000] NSWCCA 431
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

DECISION: See paragraph 42

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60229/00

BARR J

CARRUTHERS AJ

Friday 24 November 2000

REGINA v FF
JUDGMENT
1    CARRUTHERS AJ: FF seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon her at the Griffith District Court by his Honour Judge Freeman on 6 April 2000.
2 On 5 October 1999, the applicant was arraigned upon an indictment containing two counts. The first was one of causing a poison to be taken by her mother (AHF) with intent to murder under s 27 of the Crimes Act 1900, as amended (the Act) and the second was an alternative count of maliciously causing to be taken by AHF certain poison so as to endanger her life under s 39 of the Act.
3    The applicant pleaded not guilty to the first count but guilty to the second count and the Crown accepted that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment. The maximum penalty prescribed for an offence under s 39 is imprisonment for ten years.
4 The applicant was born on 27 August 1983. His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for four and a half years with a non-parole period of twelve months. Pursuant to s 19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, his Honour directed that the sentence be served in a detention centre. As the applicant was under the age of eighteen years, she was a child within the meaning of that last mentioned Act.
5    The facts as presented to his Honour were somewhat remarkable and it is convenient to set out the objective facts in the form set out in the facts sheet tendered by consent to his Honour:

"It is alleged that on the evening of the 15th of August 1998, the juvenile spoke with her young sister indicating that she was 'going to poison mum'. The next morning the juvenile went to the rear shed and took a container of Hortico brand Ant Killer Dust which contains…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v F.F and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] NSWCCA 493
Decision Date: 24 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v F.F was a case heard by the High Court of Australia. The defendant, F.F., a juvenile, was convicted of a serious crime and sentenced by the lower court. The appeal was brought forward by the defendant, who argued that the sentence imposed was excessively severe and that the judge had erred in deciding that the matter should be dealt with according to law, rather than taking into account the defendant's age and mitigating circumstances. The primary legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant sentencing principles and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for juvenile offenders, recognising the importance of rehabilitation and proportionality in sentencing young individuals. The court emphasised the need for judges to consider the unique circumstances of each case, including the age of the offender, the nature of the offence, and any mitigating factors. The High Court found that the trial judge had erred in not adequately considering the defendant's age and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also determined that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offence and the mitigating factors present in the case. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the lower court for resentencing.

In light of the findings, the High Court provided guidance to the lower court on the appropriate approach to sentencing juvenile offenders, stressing the need for a balanced consideration of both punitive and rehabilitative objectives. The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the lower court for resentencing, with specific directions to take into account the defendant's age, the potential for rehabilitation, and the principle of proportionality in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders