Regina v Jacobs - [2001] NSWCCA 212

Reported Decision:
122 A Crim R 409

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Jacobs [2001] NSWCCA 212

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60248/99

HEARING DATE(S): 11/05/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 May 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Rodney Warren Jacobs

JUDGMENT OF: Carruthers AJ at 1; Badgery-Parker AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/1296; 97/21/0210

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Keleman J

COUNSEL : W Robinson QC (Crown)
R Burgess (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
B Duchen (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law- - sentencing- prisoner in need of surgery- - fresh evidence on sentence- departmental responsibility to provide medical care to prisoners- - the limited role of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
R v Vachalec (1981) 1 NSWLR 351
R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570
Mickelberg v R (1988-89) 167 CLR 259
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587
R v White (unreported NSWCCA, 7 April 1997)
R v L (unreported, NSWCCA 17 June 1996)

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence be granted, but that the appeal be dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

CARRUTHERS AJ

BADGERY-PARKER AJ
Monday 29 May 2001

REGINA v RODNEY WARREN JACOBS (60248/99)

JUDGMENT

1 CARRUTHERS AJ: I agree with Badgery-Parker AJ.

2 BADGERY-PARKER AJ: On 8 February 1999 the applicant was indicted at Penrith District Court upon two charges laid under s 33B of the Crimes Act, of threatening injury with intent to prevent lawful apprehension. In respect of each matter the maximum penalty prescribed by the Act is imprisonment for twelve years.

3 On 16 October 1996, the applicant entered the Grace Bros store at Penrith; he was observed by security staff to place a number of items into a shopping bag. He left the store without attempting to pay and was approached by two members of the store security staff. They tried to arrest him for stealing, and a struggle followed, in the course of which the applicant, who was carrying a soft drink bottle, smashed the bottle on the ground and threatened the two men, with the broken bottle. A woman who was nearby attempted to assist the two men and the applicant struggled with her for a brief time before fleeing from the scene. When indicted the applicant pleaded guilty to both charges and was remanded for sentence on a date to be later fixed.

4 On 16 March1999 at Campbelltown District Court the applicant was indicted before his Honour Judge Keleman upon an indictment containing six counts, to which he pleaded not guilty. The trial of the applicant in respect of those matters then proceeded before the judge sitting without a jury. Following the luncheon adjournment that day, the accused was re-arraigned at his own request, and he then entered a plea of guilty to each of the six counts. All of the offences took place on 3 March…

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 Jacobs

Details

AGLC: Regina v Jacobs [2001] NSWCCA 212
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 212
Decision Date: 28 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Jacobs, the case before the Court of Criminal Appeal was a matter concerning the sentencing of the appellant, who required medical treatment while in prison. The appellant argued that the Crown's failure to ensure his medical needs were met amounted to a breach of his rights. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with determining whether the Crown's responsibility to provide adequate medical care to prisoners could be grounds for a fresh sentence and whether the court had the authority to intervene in departmental decisions regarding prisoner care.

The legal issues the court needed to resolve included the extent of the Crown's obligation to provide medical care to prisoners and the scope of the Court of Criminal Appeal's jurisdiction to review and alter a sentence based on the presentation of new evidence concerning a prisoner's medical needs. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the failure to provide timely medical treatment constituted a breach of the appellant's rights that warranted a new sentencing hearing.

The Court of Criminal Appeal, in its reasoning, held that while the Crown has a responsibility to provide medical care to prisoners, this responsibility does not extend to the specifics of medical treatment decisions, which fall under the purview of the relevant department. The court further clarified that its role in reviewing sentences is limited and does not include the authority to substitute its own judgment for that of the sentencing court on matters of departmental policy or discretion. Consequently, the court found that the appellant's claim did not warrant a fresh sentencing hearing. The court concluded that the evidence presented did not substantiate a breach of the appellant's rights sufficient to warrant intervention by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

Orders