Regina v Lee - [1999] NSWSC 773

CITATION: Regina v Lee [1999] NSWSC 773

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal Jurisdiction

FILE NUMBER(S): L00021 of 1996

HEARING DATE(S): 23 July 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 July 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
CHRISTOPHER ROY LEE

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J

COUNSEL : Mr C Craigie
(Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
P Thompson
(Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Prisoners Legal Service
(Legal Aid Commission of NSW)

CATCHWORDS: Determination of life sentence - s 13A Sentencing Act 1989

ACTS CITED: Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED: Regina v Raymond Leslie White (CCA, 23 June 1998)
Regina v Stephens [1999] NSWCCA 80
Regina v Brett Leroy Ellison (Levine J, 13 March 1998)

DECISION: See paragraphs 27 & 28

(Revised)

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

No. L00021 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE
FRIDAY 23 JULY 1999

REGINA v CHRISTOPHER ROY LEE

JUDGMENT (Determination of life sentence - s 13A Sentencing Act 1989 )

1 HIS HONOUR: The applicant Christopher Roy Lee applies pursuant to s 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989 for the re-determination of a life sentence imposed upon him by McInerney J on 16 February 1990. That life sentence commenced on 19 October 1988. 2 The factual circumstances found by the sentencing Judge are:

“The Crown case was that on the day in question the prisoner had been drinking beer with his brother. At the time he was unemployed and was living in a defacto relationship with the young lady and there were twin boys of that relationship. It appears after consuming some alcohol - the precise quantity is unclear - he left his parent’s home where he had been drinking with his brother, at Croydon Park, and was walking to his place of residence at Lakemba. It was on this journey that he came to the residence where the unfortunate deceased and a young child were living with her parents. These premises consisted of premises above and behind a shop area. The living area was apparently downstairs and there were two bedrooms, one occupied by the parents of the deceased and the other by the deceased and her child. In her parents’ bedroom apparently there was a TV set and video recorder, and some furniture.

What happened thereafter is unclear and one is dependent to a major extent on what was seen by her parents and the investigating police and to some extent the prisoner’s version of the events. Her parents returned from work at approximately 5.30 to 5.45pm. When they arrive home, they could hear the deceased’s baby crying. They looked in the kitchen and a horrifying sight met their eyes. Their daughter was lying face down on the floor, naked, in a pool of blood, obviously dead from multiple stab wounds. It was obvious that she had been the subject of a frenzied attack and the blade of a large carving knife, responsible for her wounds, had broken off and was still stuck in the deceased’s back. Dr Bradhurst, the pathologist, who conducted the post-mortem examination, and who viewed the…

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 Lee

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lee [1999] NSWSC 773
Case: [1999] NSWSC 773
Decision Date: 23 July 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Lee involved the defendant, Lee, who was convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to life imprisonment. Lee appealed against the severity of the sentence, arguing that the trial judge had not properly considered certain mitigating factors. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria, which had to decide whether the trial judge had erred in determining the length of the life sentence. The appeal raised issues concerning the proper application of the provisions in section 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989, which deals with the determination of a life sentence for serious violent offences.

The court examined whether the trial judge had correctly identified and applied the relevant principles and factors in assessing the seriousness of the crime and the appropriate length of the sentence. This included assessing whether the judge had properly considered all the mitigating factors presented by the defence and whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the crime committed. The court also considered whether the trial judge had adequately explained the reasons for the sentence imposed, which is a requirement under section 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not adequately considered all the mitigating factors presented by the defence, and the sentence imposed was therefore too severe. The court held that the trial judge had failed to properly weigh the mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence, leading to an inappropriate sentence. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the trial court for reconsideration of the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of correctly applying the principles set out in section 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989 to ensure that life sentences are proportionate and justified by the circumstances of each case.

Orders