Regina v Michael Sassin - [2002] NSWCCA 47

CITATION: Regina v Michael Sassin [2002] NSWCCA 47

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60538/01

HEARING DATE(S): 15 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Michael Sassin

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J at 20; Buddin J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0373

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Finnane DCJ

COUNSEL : PG Ingram ( (Crown)
Applicant in person

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Application for leave to appeal against sentence - charges of aggravated break, enter and commit indictable offence, break, enter and steal - parity of sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act

CASES CITED:
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed.

60538/01

KIRBY J
BUDDIN J
FRIDAY 15 FEBRUARY 2002

REGINA v MICHAEL SASSIN

Judgment

1 KIRBY J: The Court is in a position to give judgment and I ask Buddin J to give the first judgment.

2 BUDDIN J: The applicant, who appeared for himself, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by Judge Finnane in the District Court on 26 July 2001.

3 The applicant stood for sentence in relation to an offence of aggravated break, enter and commit a serious indictable offence, which, pursuant to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 attracts a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment. The circumstance of aggravation was that he was in the company of other persons whilst a robbery took place. This offence occurred on 26 March 2000. In respect of that offence the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and six months to commence on 28 January 2001 and to expire on 27 July 2004. A non-parole period of two years, to expire on 27 January 2003, was fixed. The applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment to commence at the conclusion of the non-parole period for the earlier offence, and to expire on 26 July 2003, for a separate offence of break, enter and steal which had occurred on 28 January 2001.

4 The total effective sentence imposed upon the applicant was thus a total sentence of three years and six months with a non-parole period of two years and six months.

5 The applicant has filed written submissions in support of his application which he has amplified in the course of oral argument. It would appear that his two major complaints are (a) an argument in relation to parity given the way in which two of his co-offenders were dealt with; and (b) that his Honour erred in not ordering that the second sentence should run concurrently with the first.

6 Of the two offences, the first in time being a “home invasion”, was clearly the more serious. The applicant initially contested that charge before pleading guilty at an advanced stage of the trial. The evidence led prior to his change of plea revealed that the applicant and four others had invaded the home of the principal victim who lived there with…

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 Michael Sassin

Details

AGLC: Regina v Michael Sassin [2002] NSWCCA 47
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 47
Decision Date: 15 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Michael Sassin, the respondent, Michael Sassin, applied for leave to appeal against his sentence imposed following his conviction for aggravated break, enter and commit indictable offence, and break, enter and steal. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the primary issue was whether the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales was manifestly excessive and whether it was appropriate to grant leave to appeal on the basis of parity of sentence. The appeal raised questions about the principles governing the granting of leave to appeal against sentence, particularly in cases where the issue of parity of sentence is raised.

The High Court examined the principles established in previous cases, such as R v Vines and R v O'Kane, which emphasised that leave to appeal against sentence should only be granted in cases where the sentence imposed is manifestly excessive, or where there is a significant departure from the principle of parity of sentence. The Court considered whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly excessive or whether there was a significant departure from the principle of parity of sentence. The Court also took into account the principles of proportionality and consistency in sentencing, as well as the need to ensure that the criminal justice system maintains the confidence of the community.

The Court concluded that the sentence imposed on the respondent was not manifestly excessive and that there was no significant departure from the principle of parity of sentence. The Court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences committed and was consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. The Court also noted that the principle of parity of sentence is not an absolute rule, and that the Court must consider the individual circumstances of each case when determining whether to grant leave to appeal. The Court held that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed.

The Court did not grant leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent. The Court found that the sentence was proportionate to the offences committed and consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. The Court also held that there was no significant departure from the principle of parity of sentence. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the confidence of the community in the criminal justice system, and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the offences committed.

Orders