Regina v Liddicoat - [2000] NSWCCA 111

CITATION: Regina v Liddicoat [2000] NSWCCA 111

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60014/99

HEARING DATE(S): 13 March 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 March 2000

PARTIES :

Michelle LIDDICOAT - Applicant
Regina - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1; Smart AJ at 17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0573

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Mahoney DCJ

COUNSEL : A C Haesler - Applicant
C K Maxwell QC - Respondent

SOLICITORS: T A Murphy - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Respondent

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED:
Cook [1999] NSWCCA 234, unreported
The Queen v Postiglione (1997) 71 ALJR 875
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Hickey unreported NSW CCA 27 September 1994

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal allowed to the extent of restructuring the sentence on the major charge; Orders - see paragraph 16

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60014/99

SIMPSON J
SMART AJ

Monday 13 March 2000

REGINA v Michelle LIDDICOAT

Judgment

SIMPSON J:

1    The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed on her on 11 December 1998 by Judge Mahoney in the District Court following her pleas of guilty to a charge of being carried in a conveyance without the consent of the owner, and a charge of assault with intent to rob in circumstances of aggravation. The first-mentioned charge carries a maximum penalty of penal servitude for five years; the second a maximum penalty of penal servitude for twenty years. Judge Mahoney sentenced the applicant on the more serious charge to a total term of penal servitude for four years which he divided conventionally into a minimum term of three years and an additional term of one year. On the other charge he imposed a fixed term of twelve months penal servitude.
2    The two offences were committed during the morning of Sunday 29 March 1998. The applicant and a co-offender, David Cook, had possession of and were travelling in a motor vehicle which had been stolen four days previously. Cook was driving the vehicle.
3    Just before midday the vehicle stopped outside the Petersham fire station. While Cook remained in the vehicle the applicant alighted and approached a middle-aged woman who was about to enter the Petersham fire station. The applicant took hold of the woman's handbag and demanded possession of it. The two struggled over the bag. The applicant was in possession of a knife which she later said she had for the purpose not of inflicting injury on anybody but of using it to cut the strap of the bag in order to gain its possession. Cook shouted at the applicant to get in the vehicle, which she did. The woman retained possession of the bag.
4    The applicant gave evidence in the sentencing proceedings. She was born on 19 July 1966 and was not quite thirty-two years of age at the time of the offences. She had a long-standing drug problem and had been on 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 Liddicoat

Details

AGLC: Regina v Liddicoat [2000] NSWCCA 111
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 111
Decision Date: 13 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Michelle Liddicoat, the applicant, Michelle Liddicoat, sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed by Judge Mahoney in the District Court. Liddicoat pleaded guilty to being carried in a conveyance without the consent of the owner and to assault with intent to rob in circumstances of aggravation. The primary legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal were whether the sentences imposed were disproportionate when compared with those of Liddicoat’s co-offender, and whether the sentencing judge failed to consider special circumstances warranting a departure from the statutory ratio. The Court considered the principle of parity in sentencing between co-offenders, referencing previous decisions such as Cook, The Queen v Postiglione, R v Fernando, and R v Hickey. It was noted that while Liddicoat's criminal history and circumstances were not identical to those of her co-offender, they were sufficiently comparable to warrant a reassessment of her sentence. The Court found that Liddicoat had made out a legitimate sense of grievance due to the disproportionate comparison of her sentence with that of her co-offender. Additionally, the Court concluded that special circumstances justifying a departure from the statutory ratio had not been adequately considered by the sentencing judge. The Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal to the extent of restructuring the sentence on the major charge. The orders included restructuring the sentence on the charge of assault with intent to rob to a total term of penal servitude for four years, with a minimum term of two years and an additional term of two years. The sentence on the other charge remained unchanged.

Orders