Regina v Philips; Regina v Simpson - [2002] NSWCCA 167

CITATION: Regina v Philips; Regina v Simpson [2002] NSWCCA 167

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60720/01; 60721/01

HEARING DATE(S): 6 May 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 May 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Stephen John Philips
Regina v Danielle Simpson

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0832; 01/11/0879

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : His Honour Judge Shillington QC

COUNSEL : Crown - W.G. Dawe QC
Applicants - M. Johnson (Philips); H. Dhanji (Simpson)

SOLICITORS: Crown - S.E. O'Connor
Applicants - Ross Hill & Associates (Philips);
D.J. Humphreys (Simpson)

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing appeals - sentencing judge did not quantify discount for plea of guilty - further, did not specifically backdate sentence for pre-sentence custody - desirability of quantifying discount for plea and backdating for pre-sentence custody emphasised - R v Howard [2001] NSWCCA 309 applied

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 97(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 21A(2)(c)(iii) , 22(1), 24, 47(3)
Justices Act 1902, s 51A

CASES CITED:
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Regina v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
Regina v Deeble (CCA, 19 September 1991, unreported)
Regina v English [2000] NSWCCA 245
Regina v Frascella [2001] NSWCCA 137
Regina v Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Regina v Hitchens [1983] 3 NSWLR 318
Regina v Howard [2001] NSWCCA 309
Regina v McHugh (1985) 1 NSWLR 588
Regina v Rose [2001] NSWCCA 370
Regina v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Regina v Thwaites (CCA 1993, unreported)

DECISION: Philips - Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.; Simpson - Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed. Sentence varied; see par 64.

60720/01
60721/01

GREG JAMES J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Monday, 6 May 2002

REGINA v Stephen John PHILIPS

REGINA v Danielle SIMPSON

Judgment

1 GREG JAMES J: In each case, I agree with the orders proposed by Carruthers AJ and his reasons. The orders therefore will be as he has proposed.

2 CARRUTHERS AJ: Stephen John Philips and Danielle Simpson seek leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon them by his Honour Judge Shillington QC in the Sydney District Court on 19 October 2001.

3 Although each applicant was separately represented before this Court, it is convenient to deal with their applications together.

4 Mr Philips had been committed to the District Court pursuant to the provisions of s 51A of the Justices Act 1902 after having pleaded guilty in the Local Court to a charge of robbery being armed with an offensive weapon pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. This offence carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment. The committal documents referred to the applicant being armed with a “steel-bladed machete”. However, his Honour was informed that the Crown accepted that the offensive weapon was a knife and not a machete and it was upon that basis that the District Court proceeded to sentence.

5 Mr Philips was sentenced to imprisonment for six years to date from 3 May 2001,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Philips; Regina v Simpson and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWCCA 167
Decision Date: 6 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeals arose from sentencing orders made by the District Court in relation to two defendants, Philips and Simpson. Both defendants had pleaded guilty to serious criminal charges, and the Crown had sought to impose a lengthy sentence upon conviction. The primary legal issue before the Court of Criminal Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had erred in not quantifying the discount for each defendant's plea of guilty, and in not specifically backdating the sentence for the time each defendant had already spent in pre-sentence custody. The Crown argued that the sentencing judge had failed to provide sufficient reasoning for the sentences imposed, while the defendants contended that any failure to quantify the discount or backdate the sentence did not materially affect the overall outcome.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in not quantifying the discount for the plea of guilty, as this was necessary to ensure the defendant's understanding of the sentence and the reasons for it. The Court emphasised the importance of quantifying the discount in line with established legal principles, referencing the decision in R v Howard. Similarly, the Court found that the sentencing judge should have specifically backdated the sentence for the time spent in pre-sentence custody, as this was a relevant factor in determining the overall sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeals and remitted the matter back to the District Court for resentencing, with specific directions to quantify the discount for the plea of guilty and to backdate the sentence for the time spent in pre-sentence custody.

The Court further noted that while the failure to quantify the discount and backdate the sentence did not necessarily result in an unlawful sentence, it did result in insufficient reasoning being provided, which was a material error. The Court of Criminal Appeal thus directed the District Court to provide detailed reasons for the sentences imposed, including the quantification of the discount for the plea of guilty and the backdating of the sentence for pre-sentence custody. The Court emphasised the importance of providing clear and comprehensive reasons for sentencing decisions to ensure the proper administration of justice.

Orders