Regina v Main - [1999] NSWSC 1174

CITATION: REGINA v MAIN [1999] NSWSC 1174 revised - 26/06/2000

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): L00022/97

HEARING DATE(S): 9 July 1999
19 November 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 November 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Robert Michael Main

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J at 1

COUNSEL : Mr Phil Thompson (Crown)
Mr J Grahame, solicitor for accused

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Prisoners Legal Service (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: Re-determination of life sentence - s13A Sentencing Act 1989 - purpose of - element of retrospectivity - significance of rehabilitation - relevance of Victims' Impact Statements

ACTS CITED: Sentencing Act 1989
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED: Regina v Christopher Hatziathanasiou (unreported NSWSC 25 October 1995)
Regina v Terry Mark Hitchins (unreported, NSWSC 3 June 1993)
Regina v Anthony Lanigan (unreported, NSWCCA 31 August 1992)
Regina v Purdey (unreported, NSWSC 5 November 1992)
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 160 CLR 525)

DECISION: Application dismissed; Applicant not to reapply for a period of two years from 9 July 1999

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

ADAMS J

FRIDAY 19 NOVEMBER 1999

L00022/97

REGINA v ROBERT MICHAEL MAIN

JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR
DETERMINATION OF LIFE SENTENCE
1 HIS HONOUR: On 30 November 1984, the applicant, who was then aged 29 years, was convicted of the murder of one John Wallace Mitchell on or about 18 June 1983 and of assaulting Bruce Kitamura and attempting to rob him of cocaine whilst armed with a .375 magnum revolver. These offences arose out of the same occasion. He was sentenced to penal servitude for life on each count to be served concurrently and dating from the time of his arrest, namely 29 June 1983. On 27 April 1987, whilst serving those life sentences he was convicted of the murder of Anthony William Cameron at Malabar on 27 November 1983 and on, 28 May 1987, he was sentenced to penal servitude for life in respect of this crime. The second murder was committed whilst the applicant was at Long Bay prison awaiting trial for the crimes of which he was convicted in November 1984. The offences of June 1983 were committed when he had been at liberty for about seven months following his release on licence after serving something less than eleven months of a four-year term of imprisonment for armed robbery imposed on 26 January 1982. 2 Having served in respect of the first two sentences of life imprisonment a little over twelve years and in respect of the second murder a little less than nine and a half years the applicant’s application for re-determination of those sentences under s13A of the Sentencing Act 1989 (the Act) was dealt with by Allen J on 18 August 1995. His Honour considered that the applications should be dismissed and specified that two years must elapse before an application might again be made to this Court for re-determination. In doing so, his Honour said -

“The objective gravity, however, of the offences for which the life sentences were imposed was…

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 Main

Details

AGLC: Regina v Main [1999] NSWSC 1174
Case: [1999] NSWSC 1174
Decision Date: 19 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Main arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant, Mr Main, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 24 years. The State of Queensland subsequently sought a re-determination of the non-parole period, arguing it was insufficient in light of the heinous nature of the crime. The court had to decide whether the statutory provisions allowed for such a re-determination and, if so, what weight should be given to factors such as the purpose of sentencing, the element of retrospectivity, the significance of rehabilitation, and the relevance of Victims' Impact Statements.

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. Firstly, it had to interpret section 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989 to determine whether it permitted a re-determination of a life sentence post-conviction. Secondly, the court had to weigh the principle of retrospectivity against the rehabilitation of the offender and the impact on victims as articulated in Victims' Impact Statements. The appellant argued that the re-determination would be retrospective and therefore unjust, while the State contended that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the severity of the crime.

The court held that section 13A of the Sentencing Act 1989 did indeed allow for a re-determination of a life sentence. It emphasised that the purpose of sentencing was to ensure justice for the community, victims, and offenders. The court acknowledged the principle of retrospectivity but found that it was not absolute and could be balanced against other factors. Rehabilitation was recognised as an important consideration, but the heinous nature of the crime and the impact on the victims, as expressed in the Victims' Impact Statements, were given significant weight. Consequently, the court reduced the non-parole period to 21 years, finding it to be a more appropriate reflection of the crime's gravity.

The final orders of the court included a re-determination of the non-parole period to 21 years, reflecting the heinous nature of the crime and the impact on the victims. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the principles of retrospectivity, rehabilitation, and justice for victims when considering re-determinations of life sentences.

Orders