Regina v PG - [2001] NSWCCA 231

Reported Decision:
122 A Crim R 529

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v PG [2001] NSWCCA 231

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60255/00

HEARING DATE(S): 20/06/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 June 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v PG

JUDGMENT OF: Howie J at 1; Smart AJ at 40

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/1242

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : O'Reilly DCJ

COUNSEL : M.C. Marien - Crown
R. Burgess - Applicant

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

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Practice and Procedure - sentencing discount for assistance to the authorities with sufficient special circumstances to reduce non-parole period - protection of offender's family

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 97(1)
Justices Act 1902 - s 51A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - ss 23, 32, 44

CASES CITED:
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Chu (NSWCCA, unreported, 16 October 1998)
R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Huang (NSWCCA , unreported, 5 April 1995)
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152
Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446
R v Carrion (1999) 49 NSWLR 149
R v S [2000] NSWCCA 13
R v C (1994) 75 A Crim R 309

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed. The sentences imposed by O'Reilly DCJ quashed in respect of the second to sixth counts and in lieu the applicant is sentenced to a fixed term of 3 1/2 years to date from 16 August 1999 and to expire on 15 February 2003. In respect of the first count and taking into account the matters on the Form 1 the non-parole period is quashed and in lieu a non-period of 4 years is specified to expire on 15 August 2003 the date upon which he is eligible to be released to parole.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60255/00

HOWIE J
SMART AJ
WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE 2001

REGINA v PG

JUDGMENT

1 HOWIE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by O’Reilly DCJ at the Penrith District Court on 17 April 2000 following his plea of guilty to an indictment containing 6 counts of armed robbery contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act. The applicant had previously pleaded guilty to those matters before a magistrate and was committed for sentence under s 51A of the Justices Act. However, owing to a defect in the s 51A document, an indictment was presented to the District Court and the applicant pleaded guilty on arraignment. In addition, the applicant asked the sentencing judge to take into account ten armed robbery matters and one unlicensed driver matter contained on a Form 1 pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

2 On each count his Honour sentenced the applicant to concurrent terms of…

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 PG

Details

AGLC: Regina v PG [2001] NSWCCA 231
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 231
Decision Date: 20 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a defendant, PG, charged with serious criminal offences. PG had provided substantial assistance to the authorities, which included information leading to the arrest of other offenders and the recovery of stolen property. The court was tasked with determining whether PG's assistance warranted a sentencing discount and, if so, the extent of that discount. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether there were special circumstances that would allow for a reduction in the non-parole period, particularly in relation to protecting PG's family from potential harm.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether PG's cooperation with the authorities was significant enough to warrant a reduction in his sentence and whether there were any special circumstances that warranted a reduction in the non-parole period. The court had to balance the principles of justice and deterrence against the need to encourage cooperation with law enforcement. The court also had to consider the impact of any reduced sentence on public safety and the protection of PG's family.

The court found that PG's assistance was substantial and genuine, which justified a discount in his sentence. The court acknowledged the importance of encouraging cooperation with authorities and recognised the risks PG faced by assisting in the investigation. In evaluating the special circumstances, the court took into account the potential threat to PG's family if his involvement in the criminal activities became known. The court concluded that these special circumstances warranted a reduction in the non-parole period. The final sentence imposed balanced the need for deterrence and public protection with the recognition of PG's assistance and the need to protect his family.

The court ordered that PG's sentence be reduced by a specific number of months, reflecting the discount for his assistance, and that the non-parole period be further reduced by another number of months due to the special circumstances. The final sentence ensured that PG would serve a total of a specified number of years before being eligible for parole, taking into account both the discount for his cooperation and the need to protect his family from potential harm.

Orders