Regina v Lenard Clarence JONES - [2002] NSWCCA 494

CITATION: REGINA v Lenard Clarence JONES [2002] NSWCCA 494

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60017/02

HEARING DATE(S): 9/12/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 December 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA
Lenard Clarence JONES (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Bell J at 1; Buddin J at 43

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/31/0309

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Keleman DCJ

COUNSEL : GIO Rowling (Crown)
In Person (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor
In Person (Applicant)

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

CASES CITED:
Abbott v R (1985) 17 A Crim R 355
R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63; 121 A Crim R 185
Goodwin v R (1990) 51 A Crim R 328
R v McKenna (unreported) NSWCCA 16 October 1992
R v Thompson [2000] 49 NSWLR 383; 115 A Crim R 104
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
Regina v Tait & Bartley (1979) 24 ALR 473

DECISION: Leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence granted; Appeal dismissed.

60017/02

BELL J
BUDDIN J
9 December 2002

REGINA v Lenard Clarence JONES

Judgment

1 BELL J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed on the applicant by Judge Keleman SC in the District Court on 12 December 2001.

2 On 18 October 2001, during the course of a voir dire conducted prior to the empanelment of the jury, the applicant pleaded guilty before Judge Keleman to five counts of dishonestly obtaining for himself a valuable thing (a motor cycle) by deception, namely by presenting a counterfeit bank cheque for the purchase of it, contrary to the provisions of s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Act”).

3 The offences occurred between 1 May 1999 and 8 May 1999 at various places in New South Wales.

4 The maximum penalty for each such offence was one of five years imprisonment.

5 The applicant asked Judge Keleman to take into account, in accordance with the mechanism provided by s 32 of the Crime (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“the Sentencing Procedure Act”), a further forty-six offences. These comprised (i) ten charges of dishonestly obtaining a benefit by deception (obtaining a motor cycle by presenting a counterfeit bank cheque) (ii) two charges of stealing (a pair of New South Wales registration plates and a motor cycle) (iii) one charge of possession of an unregistered firearm (a semi-automatic rifle) and one charge of possession of an unauthorised firearm (a silencer) (iv) one charge of possession of car breaking implements (bolt cutters) (v) one charge of having in his possession goods reasonably suspected of having been stolen (a motor cycle) and (vi) thirty charges that between 18 September and 1 October 1998 at Coffs Harbour he dishonestly obtained deposits of cash for a computer that had not been supplied.

6 The applicant was sentenced on count one to imprisonment for two years and eight months, to date from 29 August 2001. A non-parole period of one year and eight months, expiring on…

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 Lenard Clarence JONES 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: [2002] NSWCCA 494
Decision Date: 9 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v Lenard Clarence JONES, the applicant appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed on him by Judge Keleman in the District Court. The applicant pleaded guilty to five counts of dishonestly obtaining a valuable thing by deception. The court was required to decide whether the applicant's appeal against the severity of his sentence should be granted and if so, whether the appeal should be dismissed.

The court found that the applicant's fresh evidence, which included updated reports and documents concerning his bipolar mood disorder, did not meet the criteria for being considered as fresh evidence. The court held that the applicant's mental condition was already known and evidence about it was before the court, and there was no evidence of incompetent representation. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant's challenge to the sentence being manifestly excessive was hopeless, as the offences were objectively serious, considering their number, planning, and the sums involved. The court concluded that the sentences imposed evidenced a marked degree of leniency, reflective of the applicant's mental condition. Therefore, the applicant was granted leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence, but the appeal was dismissed.

Orders