Regina v Lawson - [2000] NSWCCA 221

CITATION: REGINA v. LAWSON [2000] NSWCCA 221

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60080/2000

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 14 June 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 June 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
LAWSON, Brett Alan

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 19; Dunford J at 20; Greg James J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/2524

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Bellear, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: M. Grogan
Respondent: C.B. Craigie

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Respondent: T.A. Murphy

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Crown appeal - parity - restitution - discretion to dismiss

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
Postiglione v. The Queen (1995-96) 189 CLR 295
Regina v. Hodges (1997) 95 A. Crim. R. 85
The Queen v. Phelan (1993) 66 A. Crim. R. 446
Regina v. Allpass (1994) 73 A. Crim. R. 561

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60080 of 2000 CORAM: GILES, JA.

DUNFORD, J.

GREG JAMES, J.
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE 2000

REGINA v. BRETT ALAN LAWSON
JUDGMENT
1 GREG JAMES, J: This is an appeal pursuant to s.5D of the Criminal Appeal Act (1912) by the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of a sentence pronounced by his Honour Judge Bellear in the District Court of New South Wales on the respondent on a charge of larceny as a servant, to which charge he pleaded guilty and for which he was ordered to perform 450 hours of community service, on the simple ground that said sentence is inadequate. 2 The facts of the offence were presented to his Honour as unchallenged and are set out in his judgment. 3 At the relevant time the respondent and two other persons were employees of a company trading in butcher shops in the Sydney Metropolitan Area. One of those persons worked at the Chatswood Chase Shopping Centre. As part of his duties he had access to the combination of the safe in which money from sales was kept to be banked. The other person worked at another butcher's store operated by the same employer. The respondent also worked as a butcher at that store. 4 The respondent spoke to the other persons about obtaining illegally money from the safe at Chatswood and the combination for the safe was obtained by the two other employees and passed on to the respondent. Some $24,000 was taken from the safe. At the time the employee in charge of that safe was of the view that only he and one of those two persons to whom I have referred knew the combination. The taking was concealed in a sense, in that the locking mechanism of the safe was removed. 5 The proceeds were divided between the three persons at the respondent's instigation, with his retaining 50% of the proceeds and the other two taking some $6,000 each. Later, the other two confessed their part, pleaded guilty to being accessories before the fact to a charge of break, enter and steal and to a further charge of receiving…

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 Lawson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lawson [2000] NSWCCA 221
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 221
Decision Date: 14 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Lawson was an appeal by the Crown against a decision of the trial judge to dismiss a charge of theft against the defendant. The defendant, Lawson, was accused of stealing a mobile phone from a retail store. The trial judge dismissed the charge on the basis that the prosecution had not proven the value of the stolen item. The Crown appealed this decision to the higher court, arguing that the trial judge had erred in law.

The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct to dismiss the charge due to the prosecution's failure to prove the value of the stolen phone. The Crown argued that the trial judge had misapplied the law in dismissing the charge and that the prosecution's failure to prove the value of the stolen item should not have led to the dismissal of the charge. The Crown contended that the value of the stolen item was a matter for the jury to decide, and that the prosecution was not required to prove the value of the stolen item beyond reasonable doubt at the trial stage. The defendant, on the other hand, submitted that the trial judge's decision was correct and that the prosecution had failed to discharge its onus of proving the value of the stolen item.

The court held that the trial judge had indeed erred in law in dismissing the charge. The court found that the prosecution was not required to prove the value of the stolen item at the trial stage, and that the value of the stolen item was a matter for the jury to decide. The court held that the trial judge had misapplied the law in dismissing the charge, and that the dismissal of the charge was not warranted. The court further held that the prosecution's failure to prove the value of the stolen item did not automatically lead to the dismissal of the charge, and that the trial judge should have allowed the charge to proceed to the jury. The court allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial.

The court ordered that the charge of theft against the defendant be reinstated, and that a new trial be held. The court held that the trial judge's error in law warranted the setting aside of the original verdict and the ordering of a new trial. The court further held that the prosecution's failure to prove the value of the stolen item did not automatically lead to the dismissal of the charge, and that the trial judge should have allowed the charge to proceed to the jury. The court ordered that the case be remitted to the trial court for a new trial.

Orders