Regina v Sewell - [2002] NSWCCA 7

CITATION: Regina v Sewell [2002] NSWCCA 7

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60731/01

HEARING DATE(S): 01/02/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Thomas Joseph Sewell

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp AJA at 1 & 64; Grove J at 62; Dowd J at 63

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/0232

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : McGuire DCJ

COUNSEL : J C Papayanni/P A Leary (Appellant)
P J P Power (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Leary and Co (Appellant)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against conviction - withdrawal of guilty plea - agreement between Crown and appellant as to the counts brought against him to which he would plead guilty - pleas of guilt voluntary - appellant repudiated agreement - repudiation does not give rise to an entitlement to withdraw the pleas of guilty of which appellant was fully informed - CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against sentence - appellant sentenced to concurrent terms of four years for seven charges of contravening s 300(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 with non-parole periods of one year five months - sentence imposed within discretion.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501
R v Sewell (Unreported, NSWCCA, 10 August 2001)
Pantorno v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 466
R v Chiron (1980) 1 NSWLR 218
R v KCH (Unreported, NSWCCA, 19 September 2001)
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 633
R v Bishop (Unreported, NSWCCA, 23 December 1996)
R v L (Unreported, NSWCCA, 17 June 1996)

DECISION: (1) Appeal against conviction dismissed (2) Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

60731/01

IPP AJA
GROVE J
DOWD J

Friday 1 February 2002

REGINA v Thomas Joseph SEWELL

Judgment

1 IPP AJA: This is an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence. I shall deal first with the appeal against conviction.

2 On 10 May 2000 during the course of a hearing before Price DCJ the appellant pleaded guilty to seven counts of contravening s 300(2)) of the Crimes Act. Each of the seven counts averred that the appellant had used a false instrument knowing it to be false with intent to induce Westpac to accept it as genuine and thereby credit to the appellant’s account a specified sum of money to the prejudice of the appellant’s employer, Westbus Pty Limited.

3 At the same time the appellant acknowledged his guilt in respect of ten like counts that were specified pursuant to s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure)Act 1999 in the prescribed form (Form 1) to that Act. However, the appellant was not asked by Price DCJ, pursuant to s 33 of the Act, whether he wished the 10 Form 1 matters to be taken into account when dealing with the seven counts on the indictment.

4 After the pleas to the seven counts in the indictment had been entered, the matter was adjourned as the…

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 Sewell

Details

AGLC: Regina v Sewell [2002] NSWCCA 7
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 7
Decision Date: 1 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal against conviction by Sewell, who contested the validity of his guilty pleas and the severity of his sentence. The lower court had found Sewell guilty on seven counts of contravening section 300(2) of the Crimes Act 1900, and he was sentenced to concurrent terms of four years, with non-parole periods of one year and five months. The legal issues at hand were whether the appellant could withdraw his guilty pleas after repudiating an agreement with the Crown, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive.

The court addressed the issue of the voluntary nature of the guilty pleas. It was established that the appellant had entered into a plea agreement with the Crown, in which he agreed to plead guilty to specific charges. The court found that the pleas were voluntary and made with full knowledge of the consequences. The appellant's later repudiation of the agreement did not entitle him to withdraw the pleas, as he had been fully informed of the charges and consequences at the time of entering the agreement. Furthermore, the court examined the sentence imposed and found that it was within the discretion of the lower court, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.

In conclusion, the court upheld the conviction and found that the guilty pleas were voluntary and properly entered. The sentence imposed by the lower court was deemed to be within the appropriate range, considering the nature of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence were both dismissed.

Orders