Regina v Stephens - [1999] NSWCCA 80

CITATION: REGINA v STEPHENS [1999] NSWCCA 80

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60474/98

HEARING DATE(S): 7 April 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
22 April 1999

PARTIES :

Patrick James Stephens - Applicant
The Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Studdert J at 44; Smart AJ at 45

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : L95/002

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McInerney J

COUNSEL: P R Boulten - Applicant
P G Ingram - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Peter Ash & Associates
R Gray

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW; MURDER; SENTENCING; APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF MINIMUM TERM AND ADDITIONAL TERM; WHETHER SENTENCE WAS EXCESSIVE

ACTS CITED: Sentencing Act 1989

DECISION: Leave to appeal out of time; Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60474/98

SHELLER JA
STUDDERT J
SMART AJ

Thursday, 22 April 1999

REGINA v Patrick James STEPHENS

JUDGMENT

1 SHELLER JA: On 22 June 1987 the appellant, Patrick James Stephens, pleaded guilty to a charge that on 18 December 1986 he murdered his wife, Sandiya Stephens, at Dungay near Murwillumbah. On 22 December 1987 McInerney J sentenced him to penal servitude for life to date from 4 January 1987, from which date the appellant had been continuously in custody.
2 In 1997 the appellant applied under s13A (2) of the Sentencing Act 1989 for determination of a minimum term and an additional term for the sentence imposed. McInerney J heard and, on 27 November 1997, granted the application which the Crown did not oppose. His Honour imposed a total sentence of penal servitude for twenty-two years comprising a minimum term of sixteen years to commence on 4 January 1987 and an additional term of six years, making the appellant eligible for parole on 4 January 2003. On 26 August 1998 the appellant applied for leave to appeal out of time on the ground that the re-determined sentence was excessive. Apart from delay the appellant had a right of appeal pursuant to s13A (12).
3 The grounds of appeal were stated in the written submissions on behalf of the appellant to be:

1. That his Honour erred by finding that the appellant was unable to show any contrition for his act.
2. His Honour gave insufficient weight to the plea of guilty.
3. His Honour erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the appellant’s rehabilitation.
4. The sentence was manifestly excessive.

4 Section 13A (9) provides that the Supreme Court, in exercising its functions under the section, is to have regard to, inter alia,
“(b) Any report on the person made by the Review Council and any other relevant reports prepared after sentence (including, for example, reports on the person’s rehabilitation), being in either case reports made available to the Supreme Court, and

(c) The need to preserve the safety of the community, and
(d) The age of the person (at the time the person committed the offence and also at the time the Supreme Court deals with the application), and may have regard to any other relevant matter.”

5 The appellant…

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 Stephens

Details

AGLC: Regina v Stephens [1999] NSWCCA 80
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 80
Decision Date: 22 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Stephens involved a criminal matter where the defendant was convicted of murder. The appellant, who was the accused in the case, was convicted of the murder of his de facto partner. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, specifically before the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The primary focus of the appeal was on the sentencing aspect of the case, particularly whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionately harsh and sought a reduction in the minimum term and the additional term of imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate application of the principles of sentencing in murder cases. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the trial judge had not properly taken into account the mitigating factors. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had failed to give proper weight to the mitigating factors.

The court, in delivering its judgment, carefully considered the principles of sentencing in murder cases and the specific circumstances of this case. The court held that the trial judge had properly exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had given proper weight to the mitigating factors. The court emphasised the gravity of the offence and the need to ensure that sentences for murder reflect the seriousness of the crime. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not warrant a reduction.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge and found that it was not excessive. The appellant's application for a reduction in the minimum term and the additional term of imprisonment was denied.

Orders