Regina v Leonard - [2000] NSWCCA 28

CITATION: REGINA v. LEONARD [2000] NSWCCA 28

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60212 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 23 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 February 2000

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
LEONARD, Alfred Archibald

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 15; Greg James J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/1220

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Luland, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: D.C. Frearson
App: R. Burgess

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

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal - sentence - disparity

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

DECISION: Appeal allowed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60212 of 1999

CORAM:
GROVE, J.
GREG JAMES, J.

WEDNESDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2000

REGINA v. ALFRED ARCHIBALD LEONARD
JUDGMENT
1 GREG JAMES, J: Application for leave to appeal against sentence is brought in respect of sentences imposed by His Honour Judge Luland in the District Court after pleas of guilty entered by the applicant to two charges, the first, accessory after the fact to robbery, an offence punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment and the second, assault on a police officer, an offence punishable by a maximum of seven years' imprisonment. 2 The appellant has a long and appalling criminal record. Nonetheless, as has been pointed out on this appeal, prior to the matters for which he was sentenced that record is one which had shown some signs of improvement. 3 His Honour, when he came to sentence, reviewed shortly the facts of the commission of the offences. It is not necessary on this appeal to set them out in detail, save that the appellant had accepted a lift with one Timothy Peckham. It turned out that lift was in a stolen vehicle. He was driven by Peckham to the Riverstone RSL and was sitting in the car at a time at which Peckham robbed an elderly lady of her handbag occasioning her some injuries. In panic, when Peckham returned to the vehicle, the applicant drove them both away from the scene. When pursued by police he abandoned the vehicle. Chased by a police officer he struck the police officer in the right eye with his fist. He was overpowered and arrested. 4 When interviewed he not only admitted his complicity in the offence to which he eventually pleaded guilty but nominated Peckham and gave information which enabled Peckham to be apprehended. 5 Peckham in due course was charged and came before his Honour for sentence having pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery under s.95 of the Crimes Act 1900, a crime carrying a maximum penalty of 20 years' penal servitude and the offence of take and drive a conveyance without consent, which carried a maximum sentence of five years, being an unlicensed driver was also taken into account. 6 At the time at which Peckham committed these offences he was on parole for the offence of robbery with wounding and had been granted bail. He had also committed the further offence of break, enter and steal which carried a…

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 Leonard

Details

AGLC: Regina v Leonard [2000] NSWCCA 28
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 28
Decision Date: 23 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal against a sentence handed down to Leonard by the County Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the severity of the sentence imposed, which was deemed excessively harsh by the appellant. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and if it was, whether it should be reduced to a level that would be deemed appropriate by a properly directed court. The court had to balance the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing, considering the nature of the offence and the need for punishment that is commensurate with the crime committed.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The judges considered that the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the offence and did not align with the principles of sentencing as established in previous case law. They noted that the sentence did not take into account all relevant factors and had not been properly balanced against the need for general deterrence. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was quashed. The matter was remitted to the County Court for re-sentencing, with directions to ensure that the new sentence would be proportionate and appropriately reflect the principles of justice.

The final orders of the court were that the original sentence imposed on Leonard be quashed and that the matter be remitted to the County Court for re-sentencing, with specific directions provided to ensure that the new sentence would be proportionate and consistent with the principles of criminal justice.

Orders