Regina v Lawrence - [2004] NSWCCA 404

CITATION: Regina v Lawrence [2004] NSWCCA 404

HEARING DATE(S): 09/11/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF: McColl JA at 1; Howie J at 2; Buddin J at 38

DECISION: The appeal is allowed in part and the sentence imposed for the second count is quashed. In lieu the applicant is sentenced to 2 years 6 months imprisonment to commence on 2 October 2004. There is to be a non-parole period of 6 months to expire on 1 April 2005 the date upon which the applicant is eligible to be released to parole.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - No matter of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - ss 94, 83(C)(1), 315, 316(1)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED: R v Fernando (1990) 276 A Crim R 58
R v Morgan (2003) 57 NSWLR 533
R v Derbas [2003] NSWCCA 44
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117
R v SY [2003] NSWCCA 291
R v Scott [2003] NSWCCA 286
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616

PARTIES :
Regina v Wendy Olive Lawrence

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/2025

COUNSEL: B. Knox SC - Crown
P. Hamill - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Applicant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 70043/03

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Newman AJ

2004/2025

McCOLL JA
HOWIE J
BUDDIN J
TUESDAY 23 NOVEMBER 2004

REGINA v WENDY OLIVE LAWRENCE

Judgment

1 McCOLL JA: I agree with Howie J.

2 HOWIE J: On 24 November 2003 the applicant was arraigned before Newman AJ on an indictment containing 2 counts: the first a charge of stealing from the person contrary to s 94 of the Crimes Act, the second a charge that she had provided false information to police with the intention to hinder an investigation of a serious indictable offence contrary to s 315 of the Crimes Act. The applicant pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced by Newman AJ as follows:

(i) In respect of the first count and taking into account an offence on a form 1 to imprisonment for a fixed term of 2 years

3 Both sentences commenced on 2 October 2002. The offence for the first count was, therefore, to be served totally concurrent with the sentence imposed on the second count. The non-parole period of 3 years commenced on 2 October 2002 and expires on 1 October 2005, the date upon which the applicant will be eligible to be release to parole.

4 The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed but in submissions sought to restrict the appeal to a consideration only of the sentence imposed for the second count. There are two grounds of appeal: the first contends that his Honour erred in his assessment of the objective criminality of the offence in the second count and the second…

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 Lawrence

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lawrence [2004] NSWCCA 404
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 404
Decision Date: 23 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Lawrence, the appellant was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to imprisonment by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal before the Court of Appeal focused on the severity of the sentence imposed on the appellant. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the trial judge had failed to properly consider mitigating factors.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, thereby constituting a miscarriage of justice. The Court also needed to determine if the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in sentencing, taking into account all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion. The Court noted that the appellant had a history of serious criminal conduct and that the offence involved the use of a firearm, which warranted a substantial penalty. The Court also found that the trial judge had given due consideration to the mitigating factors presented by the defence. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties appropriate for the crime committed and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Orders