Regina v Lilley - [2000] NSWCCA 57

Reported Decision: 111 A Crim R 468

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Lilley [2000] NSWCCA 57 revised - 23/03/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60459/99

HEARING DATE(S): 06/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 March 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Ronald S Lilley

JUDGMENT OF: Fitzgerald JA at 1; Barr J at 8; Smart AJ at 9

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/3053; 98/21/3325; 98/21/3326

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Moore DCJ

COUNSEL : P G Berman (Crown)
W C Terracini SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Ward Maxwell & Co (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing. - Sentences must reflect objective gravity of offences.

LEGISLATION CITED: Suitors’ Fund Act 1951,
Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967

DECISION: Appeal allowed; sentences quashed.; In lieu of the sentences imposed, Ronald Stephen Lilley is sentenced:; (i) for the offence of attempt to pervert the course of justice to a minimum term of imprisonment of one year starting on 22 July 1998 and ending on 21 July 1999 and an additional term of 1 year starting on 21 July 1999.; (ii) for the offence of supply prohibited drug in July 1998 to a minimum term of imprisonment of one year starting on 22 July 1998 and ending on 21 July 1999 and an additional term of 1 year starting on 22 July 1999.; (iii) for the offence of on 13 June 1996 knowingly take part in the supply of a commercial quantity of heroin to a minimum term of imprisonment for 2 years starting on 22 July 1999 and ending on 21 July 2001 and an additional term of 2 years starting on 22 July 2001. The refusal of this Court to make the requested recommendation is without prejudice to Mr Lilley’s application to the Director-General.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60459/99
DC 97/21/3053, 98/21/3325, 98/21/3326

FITZGERALD JA
BARR J
SMART AJ
FRIDAY 10 MARCH 2000

REGINA v Ronald S LILLEY
JUDGMENT

1 FITZGERALD JA: The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the reasons for judgment of Smart AJ. 2 It is unfortunate that what the sentencing judge himself described as an “extremely lenient sentence” should have been supported by an inaccurate description of Mr Lilley’s offences and / or personal circumstances as “exceptional and rare” and an insupportable finding “that there should be parity between [Mr Lilley’s] case and Hatch’s case”. Further, the sentencing judge regrettably did not make satisfactory findings, and gave no indication whether he considered that Mr Lilley was unable, or did not intend, to supply the commercial quantity of heroin which he agreed or offered to supply. 3 The circumstances of the offence of supplying a commercial quantity of heroin are confused and Mr Lilley’s role and intended role if he had not been arrested are unclear. Unless the sentencing judge considered that Mr Lilley was unable, or did not intend, to supply the commercial quantity of heroin which he had agreed or…

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 Lilley

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lilley [2000] NSWCCA 57
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 57
Decision Date: 10 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Lilley was a case heard in the Court of Appeal in which the appellant, Lilley, sought to appeal his sentence for offences of drug trafficking. Lilley was convicted of multiple charges related to the importation and supply of prohibited drugs, and the trial judge sentenced him to a total of six years' imprisonment. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the objective gravity of the offences committed.

The court had to determine if the sentence reflected the seriousness of Lilley's criminal conduct. This involved assessing whether the sentence was proportionate to the nature and extent of the offences, taking into account relevant sentencing principles and guidelines. The appeal hinged on whether the trial judge had adequately considered the objective gravity of the crimes and whether the sentence was commensurate with the culpability of the offender.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not sufficiently emphasised the objective seriousness of Lilley's crimes in the sentencing process. The court held that the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences, which involved large-scale drug trafficking. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing. The Court of Appeal directed that the re-sentencing process should ensure the sentence appropriately reflects the objective gravity of the offences.

Orders