Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Lloyd

Regina v Lloyd

Case [2003] NSWCCA 49 26 February 2003

Appeal

Severity

Stealing from the person in circumstances of aggravation

Armed with offensive weapon with intent to commit robbery

Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation

Young offender

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Lloyd [2003] NSWCCA 49

HEARING DATE(S): 24/02/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
26 February 2003

JUDGMENT OF: O'Keefe J at 1; Bell J at 33

DECISION: (i) Leave to appeal granted. (ii) Appeal allowed, sentences below set aside. (iii) In lieu of such sentences, the applicant is sentenced as follows:(a) In respect of the offence of stealing from the person in circumstances of aggravation - to a fixed term of imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, to commence on 22 March 2002 and to end on 21 September 2003. This sentence is to be served concurrently with the sentence referred to below. In view of the fixed term sentence proposed, a non-parole period is not fixed in respect of this offence; (b) In respect of the offence of being armed with an offensive weapon with intent to commit a felony - to a term of imprisonment of 3 years to commence on 22 March 2002, and to end on 21 March 2005. The non-parole period in respect of this offence is fixed as 18 months, to commence on 22 March 2002 and to conclude on 21 September 2003, on which date the applicant is to be released on parole in accordance with the provisions of s 50(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Appeal - Severity - Stealing from the person in circumstances of aggravation - Armed with offensive weapon with intent to commit robbery - Blood filled syringe - Hepatitis C affected blood - Young offender - Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation - No prior criminal record - Family support - Early plea of guilty - Utilitarian value not taken into account

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900; ss 95(1), 114(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999; ss 45 (1)(c), 50(1)

CASES CITED: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Regina v Carr [2002] NSWCCA 434
Regina v Deluca [2002] NSWCCA 446
Regina v Dorsett [2002] NSWCCA 326
Regina v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267
Regina v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

PARTIES :
Regina
Briallen Elizabeth Lloyd

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60200/02

COUNSEL: Mr H Dhanji - Applicant
Mr R A Hulme SC - Crown

SOLICITORS: Mr D J Humphreys - Applicant
Ms S E O'Connor - Crown

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/11/1184

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Shillington DCJ

- 13 -

60200/02

O’Keefe J
Bell J

Regina v Lloyd

Judgment

O’KEEFE J:

1 O’Keefe J: Briallen Elizabeth Lloyd (the Applicant) has sought leave to appeal from two concurrent sentences, each of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. They were imposed in the District Court on 22 March 2002 following pleas of guilty entered by her in respect of charges of:

1. having, on 17 February 2001, stolen from the person of Tom Zao an amount of $200 in circumstances of aggravation contrary to s 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900; and

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 Lloyd

Details

AGLC: Regina v Lloyd [2003] NSWCCA 49
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 49
Decision Date: 26 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lloyd, was convicted of stealing from the person under aggravating circumstances and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court. Lloyd was armed with a blood-filled syringe containing Hepatitis C-affected blood when he committed the crime. Despite being a young offender with no prior criminal record, the lower court did not consider the utilitarian value of his early plea of guilty and family support in its sentencing decision. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was excessive given Lloyd's age, lack of criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court had to determine whether the lower court erred in its assessment of the appropriate sentence for Lloyd. It needed to consider the severity of the offence, the circumstances of aggravation, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also had to assess whether the lower court appropriately took into account the utilitarian value of Lloyd's early plea of guilty and family support. The appeal raised questions about the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, particularly for young offenders with no prior criminal record.

The court found that the lower court had not given sufficient weight to the utilitarian value of Lloyd's early plea of guilty and family support. It held that the sentence was excessive given Lloyd's age, lack of criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of considering the circumstances of the offender, including their age, criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation, when determining the appropriate sentence. It also highlighted the need for courts to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, particularly for young offenders. The court reduced the sentence imposed by the lower court, taking into account the factors it deemed to have been inadequately considered.

The court ordered that Lloyd's sentence be reduced, taking into account the factors it deemed to have been inadequately considered by the lower court. The reduction in sentence reflected the court's view that the lower court had not given sufficient weight to the utilitarian value of Lloyd's early plea of guilty and family support. The court emphasised the importance of considering the circumstances of the offender, including their age, criminal history, and potential for rehabilitation, when determining the appropriate sentence. The court also highlighted the need for courts to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, particularly for young offenders.

Orders