Regina v Levy - [2000] NSWSC 355

CITATION: Regina -v- Levy [2000] NSWSC 355

FILE NUMBER(S): SC L3/98

HEARING DATE(S): 31/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 31 March 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Barrie Ronald Bruce Levy

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr Berman (Crown)
Mr Nicholson S.C (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Life sentence - determination of minimim and additional terms - Sentencing Act 1989 - s.13A

LEGISLATION CITED: Sentencing Act 1989
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: Application of Gary John Purdy (1993) 65 A Crim R 441
Application of Michael Bradley (unreported, 1 march 1996)
R v Malcolm (1991) 58 A Crim R 148
R v Rees (unreported, 22 September 1995)
R v Chester (unreported, 21 December 1992)

DECISION: Sentence redetermined

- 1 -
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION
FRIDAY 31 MARCH 2000

REGINA -v- Barrie Ronald Bruce LEVY

1   This application is brought under section 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989 (“the Act") for a determination of a minimum term and an additional term in respect of a life sentence imposed for the murder of Lory De Barbarrez ("the deceased") at Kyeemagh on or about 18 September 1969, such life sentence having been imposed on 7 August 1970.
2   Although there some a contest about the facts, I make the following findings of fact.
3   The applicant and the deceased had been associates and involved in criminal activity for some time having been co-offenders in a break and enter offence at Mark Foys Limited, Rockdale on 11 May 1965, during which robbery seventy-seven furs were stolen. Both the applicant and the victim received prison sentences for that offence and both spent some weeks of the early stage of that sentence in the Long Bay prison complex at the same time.
4   On 9 February 1967 the victim was released from gaol as a result of his remission entitlements. On 3 July 1968 the applicant was also released from gaol. After the applicant was released he resumed his association with the victim. The applicant also became associated in criminal activity with a Paul Barnhart.
5   On the afternoon of 18 September 1969 the applicant visited his friend Paul Barnhart's residence and secured his involvement in what the applicant said a safe blowing venture to be perpetrated near Kingsford-Smith airport, Mascot which was to take place that night.
6   Barnhart obtained some gelignite and detonators, and that evening went with the applicant in the applicant's car to Kogarah Oval and stole two spades and a mattock. After leaving the Oval the applicant informed Barnhart that he understood there could be a night watchman at the place they intended to rob. The applicant also told Barnhart that he wanted the victim to take part in the enterprise as he was a big fellow and had karate skills.
7   Just before midnight that night the applicant and Barnhart attended the victim's flat in Kings Cross to induce the victim to join in the enterprise. The victim acceded to that inducement and agreed…

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 Levy

Details

AGLC: Regina v Levy [2000] NSWSC 355
Case: [2000] NSWSC 355
Decision Date: 31 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Levy, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to a life term for a serious offence. The dispute centred on the determination of the minimum term to be served and the additional term for the offence, under the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1989. The court was required to consider the severity of the crime, the appellant's culpability, and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive and did not adequately reflect the principles of proportionality and individualisation.

The primary legal issue before the court was the application of section 13A of the Sentencing Act, which deals with the imposition of life sentences and the setting of minimum terms. The court had to balance the need to protect the community from the appellant's potential future offending with the need to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the appellant's level of culpability. The court also had to consider the principles of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation in the context of the specific circumstances of the case.

After carefully examining the evidence and arguments presented, the court determined that the minimum term imposed was appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime and the appellant's level of culpability, while also considering the principles of proportionality and individualisation. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence was excessive and concluded that the minimum term was justified. The court also found that the additional term was commensurate with the severity of the offence and the appellant's culpability.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders