Regina v Flavell - [2002] NSWCCA 220

CITATION: Regina v Flavell [2002] NSWCCA 220

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60378/01

HEARING DATE(S): 3 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Rodney Sean Flavell

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0908

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : His Honour Judge Finnane QC

COUNSEL : Applicant - C.B. Craigie SC
Crown - P.E. Barrett

SOLICITORS: Applicant - M. Churchill
Crown - S.E. O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Severity appeal - direct relationship between offences and applicant's mental disorder.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s112(2)

CASES CITED:
R v Engert (1998) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Letteri (unreported, CCA, 18/3/92)

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; for orders see pars 31-33.

60378/01

GREG JAMES J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Date

REGINA v Rodney Sean FLAVELL

Judgment

1 GREG JAMES J: I would ask Carruthers AJ to deliver the first judgment.

2 CARRUTHERS AJ: Rodney Sean Flavell seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Finnane QC in the Sydney District Court on 25 May 2001. On 2 February 2001 the applicant pleaded guilty to an indictment containing two counts. Firstly, a count of aggravated break, enter and commit felony, namely assault occasioning actual bodily harm whilst armed with an offensive weapon, pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 as amended (hereinafter the Act). This offence carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment. The second count was one of aggravated break, enter and commit a felony namely affray whilst armed with an offensive weapon, pursuant to s 112(2) of the Act. His Honour was asked to take into account one count of malicious damage on a Form 1.

3 On 25 May 2001 his Honour sentenced the applicant on the first count to imprisonment for six years and five months, commencing on 5 December 1999 and expiring on 4 May 2006 and fixed a non-parole period of three years and six months commencing on 5 December 1999 and expiring on 4 June 2003.

4 With regard to the second count, his Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for four years and nine months commencing on 25 May 2001 and expiring on 24 February 2006 and fixed a non-parole period of two years commencing on 25 May 2001 and expiring on 24 May 2003. Thus the earliest date upon which the applicant will be eligible to apply for release to parole is 4 June 2003.

5 When sentencing the applicant his Honour made no reference to the offence on the Form 1.

6 The applicant was born on 13 October 1967.

7 He has had a somewhat unsettled life which involved excessive drinking and, at times, ingestion of narcotic drugs.

8 Prior to the subject offences he had been living in a de facto relationship for some six years and there are three children from that relationship. The relationship was characterised by constant strain and volatility due…

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 Flavell

Details

AGLC: Regina v Flavell [2002] NSWCCA 220
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 220
Decision Date: 3 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Flavell, the respondent, who was serving a sentence of imprisonment, appealed against the severity of that sentence on the grounds that the sentencing judge had failed to properly take into account the direct relationship between the respondent's mental disorder and the offences he committed. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had not appropriately considered the direct causal link between his mental disorder and the criminal acts, which led to an unduly severe sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in failing to sufficiently account for the direct relationship between the respondent's mental disorder and the commission of the offences. The court had to determine if this omission amounted to a significant error that warranted a reduction in the severity of the sentence. This required an analysis of the sentencing principles and the guidelines provided by the Court of Appeal on the matter of mental health and its impact on sentencing.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed failed to adequately consider the direct relationship between the respondent's mental disorder and the offences. The court held that the sentencing judge's error was significant enough to warrant a reduction in the severity of the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of properly considering the impact of mental health on criminal responsibility and the sentencing process. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced accordingly.

The final orders of the court included the reduction of the respondent's sentence to reflect the appropriate consideration of the direct relationship between his mental disorder and the commission of the offences. The court's decision underscores the necessity for sentencing judges to meticulously assess the influence of mental health issues on criminal conduct when determining the appropriate penalty.

Orders