Regina v R.A.F - [1999] NSWSC 615

CITATION: REGINA v R.A.F [1999] NSWSC 615

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): 70079/98

HEARING DATE(S): 18 June 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
23 June 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
R.A.F

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J

COUNSEL : Mark Adam McAdam QC - Crown
Christopher John Bruce - Defence

SOLICITORS: Crown Solicitor
Legal Aid of NSW

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - accessory after the fact to murder - plea of guilty - juvenile aged 14 years 9 months at time of offence and almost 17 years at date of sentence. Very compelling subjective features mitigating significant objective culpability. Held: appropriate penalty, a deferred sentence and recognisance pursuant to s.558 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s.558

DECISION: Sentence deferred. Released upon recognisance to be of good behaviour for period of 4 years from today's date, and to come up for sentence at any time within that period if so required by the Court - subject to Conditions.

5
SUPREME COURT OF
NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

SULLY J

23 June 1999

70079/98 - REGINA v R.A.F.

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: Before the Court for sentence is a young girl who was born on 1 July 1982. The offence in respect of which she stands for sentence was committed on or about 12 March 1997. She was aged, therefore, 14 years and not quite 9 months at the time of the offence; and she is now aged a few days short of 17 years. She is, therefore, and was at all material times, a “child” as defined in the Children (Criminal Proceedings Act) 1987. The provisions of that Act are, therefore, applicable to the present proceedings. Having regard to the provisions of section 11 of that Act, I propose to refer to her either by her initials or as “the young person”. I take note of, and draw attention to, the provisions of section 11(1) and (5) of the Act. 2 On 19 March 1999 the young person was arraigned before Barr J of this Court sitting at Lismore. There was presented against her an indictment charging that on or about 12th March 1997 she had been an accessory after the fact to a murder, on or about 9 March 1997 and at Casino, by one Adam John Bowhay of one Steven Lindsay Jarvis. The young person pleaded guilty upon such arraignment, and Barr J recorded, accordingly, judgment of conviction. His Honour remanded the young person for sentence to this Court on Thursday last 18 June instant. For administrative reasons the Court was not able to deal with the matter until Friday last 19 June instant, when the Court heard all necessary evidence and submissions in connection with sentence. 3 The young person was arrested on 20 March 1997. She was thereafter in custody until 21 April 1997 when she was admitted to bail by a Judge of this Court. Thereafter, and until today, the young person has been at liberty on conditional bail. The bail conditions as originally…

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 R.A.F 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: [1999] NSWSC 615
Decision Date: 23 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Regina versus R.A.F., where the defendant pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to a murder. The defendant was 14 years and 9 months old at the time of the offence, nearing 17 years of age at the time of sentencing. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate penalty considering the defendant's age and the subjective mitigating factors presented.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were the determination of an appropriate penalty for the defendant given the significant objective culpability of the offence, balanced against the compelling subjective features of the defendant's personal circumstances and age. The court had to consider the statutory framework provided by the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), particularly section 558, which governs the sentencing of juveniles.

The court found that the compelling subjective features of the defendant's case, such as their age, personal background, and potential for rehabilitation, outweighed the significant objective culpability of the offence. The court determined that a deferred sentence and recognisance was the most appropriate penalty. This decision recognised both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors presented by the defendant's personal circumstances. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to balance justice for the victim with the rehabilitative potential of the defendant, consistent with the objectives of juvenile justice.

The court ordered a deferred sentence and recognisance pursuant to section 558 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This decision underscores the importance of considering individual circumstances in sentencing, particularly for juvenile offenders.

Orders