Regina v R.A.F. - [2000] NSWSC 672

CITATION: Regina v R.A.F. [2000] NSWSC 672

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70079/98

HEARING DATE(S): 18/06/99
23/06/99
5/05/2000
19/05/2000
26/05/2000
22/06/2000
4/07/2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 4 July 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
R.A.F.

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J

COUNSEL : T. Macintosh - Crown
P. Winch - R.A.F.

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
Legal Aid Commission of NSW - RAF

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987

DECISION: Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 37 weeks to date from 4/7/00. Fixed by reason of special circumstances non-parole period of 1 year and 11 weeks to date from 4/7/00; Order pursuant to s.19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act that the whole of the sentence be served in a detention centre.

SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SULLY J
4 July 2000

70079/98 - REGINA v R.A.F

ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Before the Court is a young person, RAF, with whom the Court dealt initially on 23 June 1999. On that occasion the Court made an order pursuant to s 558 of the Crimes Act 1900 (New South Wales) that the young person be released upon her entering into a recognizance particularly conditioned. That penalty was imposed in respect of an offence admitted by the young person of having been an accessory after the fact to a murder. 2 On 23 June 1999 the Court published formally written remarks on sentence. They speak for themselves as to the nature and the incidents of the murder, and of the accessorial offence of the young person; and of the considerations which persuaded the Court to grant the recognizance in lieu of a full-time custodial sentence. 3 For a short time after 23 June 1999 the young person co-operated in the ways required of her by the conditions of the recognizance. Sadly, she did not persevere in that course of conduct. Her failures to comply with the conditions of her recognizance caused her to be formally breached, and she was brought before this Court on 26 May of this year. The recognizance was revoked, and she was formally convicted. 4 The further consideration of proceedings in respect of the said conviction were adjourned to 23 March 2001, and the young person was granted, pursuant to s 11(1) of the then recently enacted Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, bail conditioned in ways which are set out in the file copy of the judgment formally delivered on 26 May. 5 It is to be observed that the Court took that course in May last year essentially because Major Harman of the Salvation Army, and Mrs Christine Latu, a Juvenile Justice officer principally concerned in the past with the young person, had gone to a great deal of trouble in order to arrange a full-time residential rehabilitation programme for the young person. Once again, sadly, the young person did not take proper advantage of that opportunity. Her breaches in that regard are what have brought her back before…

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 R.A.F.

Details

AGLC: Regina v R.A.F. [2000] NSWSC 672
Case: [2000] NSWSC 672
Decision Date: 4 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales heard the case of Regina v R.A.F. where the defendant, RAF, was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to a murder. RAF was initially sentenced to a recognizance on 23 June 1999, but failed to comply with the conditions of her recognizance, leading to a formal breach and a conviction on 26 May 2000. The court considered sentencing the defendant in accordance with the ordinary sentencing principles, taking into account objective matters such as the seriousness of the crime and subjective matters such as the youth of the defendant and her potential for rehabilitation.

The court had to decide whether to impose a sentence of full-time custody or some other kind of sentence, and whether to find special circumstances to justify a non-parole period. The court found special circumstances existed based on the defendant's potential for rehabilitation and the need for post-custodial supervision, support, and encouragement. The court also had to decide on the appropriate length of the sentence and the non-parole period.

The court sentenced RAF to imprisonment for two years and 37 weeks, with a non-parole period of one year and 11 weeks. The court also ordered that the sentence be served in a detention centre pursuant to s 19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. The court made recommendations to the Director-General of Juvenile Justice to enable RAF to serve her non-parole period at the Yasmar Detention Centre, to keep a copy of the report of Dr Canaris with her custodial file, to afford her every opportunity consistent with proper prisoner discipline and administration to continue her education and to take advantage of such other counselling and support services as are detailed in Dr Canaris' report, and to afford her every opportunity consistent with proper prisoner discipline and administration to have regular maternal access to her infant son Andrew Jessup.

Orders