Regina v Lee Joshua Martin - [2004] NSWCCA 416

CITATION: Regina v Lee Joshua Martin [2004] NSWCCA 416

HEARING DATE(S): 30/09/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Hislop J at 2; Smart AJ at 31

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted.; 2. Appeal allowed.; 3. Sentence of imprisonment for 5 years and 4 months to commence on 14 June 2003 confirmed.; 4. The non-parole period of 4 years is quashed. In lieu thereof, non-parole period of 3 years 3 months commencing on 14 June 2003 and expiring on 13 September 2006 substituted.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentencing - Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act s 44 - Discount for utilitarian value of plea - Reduction of non-parole period

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s 44

CASES CITED: R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

PARTIES :
Lee Joshua Martin - Applicant
Regina - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/1825 CCAP

COUNSEL: Ms L Flannery - Applicant
Mr D C Frearson SC - Crown

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor, Legal Aid Commission - Applicant
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/1007

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Nield DCJ

2004/1825 CCAP

WOOD CJ at CL
HISLOP J
SMART AJ

29 November 2004

Regina v Lee Joshua MARTIN

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Hislop J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour.

2 HISLOP J: On 28 October 2003 the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of robbery in company while armed with an offensive weapon (a replica hand gun), contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 s 97(1). The maximum penalty for such an offence is 20 years imprisonment.

3 On 13 February 2004, Nield DCJ sentenced the applicant to a total of 5 years and 4 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 4 years to commence on 14 June 2003. This sentence also took into account two matters on a Form 1, namely assault with intent to rob, and goods in custody.

4 The offence occurred on 14 June 2003. The facts as shortly stated by his Honour in his Remarks on Sentence were:

The complainant was walking along Parramatta Road between Broadway and Camperdown when he was accosted by the offender who asked the complainant for money. When the complainant told the offender that he did not have any money, the offender produced the replica hand gun and pointed it at the complainant and demanded that the complainant hand over his wallet. When the complainant handed over his wallet to the offender, the offender started to look through it. Then the offender and the complainant were joined by another and the offender gave the complainant’s wallet to this man, who, after looking through it, said that there was nothing in it. Then the offender demanded that…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Lee Joshua Martin and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWCCA 416
Decision Date: 29 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Lee Joshua Martin, the defendant faced sentencing for a criminal offence. The nature of the dispute involved the application of sentencing principles under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, specifically the discount for the utilitarian value of a plea. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to decide the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the statutory framework and sentencing principles. It had to determine the extent of the discount for the defendant's plea and how this impacted the non-parole period of his sentence. The court needed to balance the defendant's criminal culpability with the benefits of an early guilty plea.

The court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine the appropriate discount. It found that the defendant's plea was made at an early stage, which warranted a significant discount. This discount led to a reduction in the non-parole period, reflecting the benefits of the plea in expediting the resolution of the case. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that incorporated the discount, resulting in a reduced non-parole period.

No further orders were made beyond the sentencing determination.

Orders