Regina v Stevens - [2000] NSWCCA 324

CITATION: Regina v Stevens [2000] NSWCCA 324

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60548/1998

HEARING DATE(S): 10/07/2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 July 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Neil Colin STEVENS

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 1; Bell J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0220; 97/11/0220; 97/11/1087

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL : CK Maxwell QC - Crown
MC Ramage QC - Applicant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
Stevcen Naris & Co - Applicant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED:
R v Bloomfield (1998) 44 NSWLR 734

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal branted; appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60548/98
STUDDERT J
BELL J

Monday, 10 July, 2000
REGINA v Neil Collin STEVENS

JUDGMENT
1    STUDDERT J : I ask Justice Bell to give the first judgment.
2    BELL J : This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon the applicant by his Honour Judge Kinchington upon an indictment containing seven counts. Count 1 charged the applicant with an offence shortly described as “use false instrument” contrary to s 300(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (“the Act”). It carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment of ten years. In respect of this count the applicant was sentenced to a minimum term of three years imprisonment to date from 28 August 1998 and to expire on 27 August 2001. An additional term of eighteen months was specified to commence on 28 August 2001 and to expire on 27 February 2003.
3 Counts 2, 5 and 6 charged the applicant with attempting to dishonestly obtain a valuable thing by deception contrary to s. 178BA/344 of the Act. These offences carry a maximum sentence of five years imprisonment. Counts 3, 4 and 7 charged the applicant with dishonestly obtaining a valuable thing by deception contrary to s. 178BA of the Act. These offences also carry a maximum of five years imprisonment.
4    In respect of count 2 the applicant was sentenced to an identical term to that imposed on count 1. The remaining five counts were the subject of fixed term sentences which were expressed to commence on 28 August 1998 and to expire on 27 May 2000.
5    The sentencing judge also dealt with the applicant in respect of a breach of recognisance imposed by Judge Flannery in the Sydney District Court on 18 December 1992. The recognisance was conditioned upon the applicant being of good behaviour for a term of five years. This recognisance was imposed following the applicant's conviction on four counts shortly described as “obtaining property by passing valueless cheques”. In relation to the breach of this recognisance his Honour imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment to commence 28 August 1998 and to expire on 27 February 1999.
6 In addition to the seven counts in the indictment the applicant asked his Honour to take into account a further ten matters which were set out in a Form 1 pursuant…

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 Stevens

Details

AGLC: Regina v Stevens [2000] NSWCCA 324
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 324
Decision Date: 10 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Neil Colin Stevens sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Kinchington. The applicant was convicted on seven counts, including charges under sections 300(2) and 178BA/344 of the Crimes Act 1900. The legal issues in the appeal concerned whether the sentences were unduly harsh, if the sentencing judge erred in considering breaches of recognisance, whether alternatives to full-time custody were adequately considered, if the pleas of guilty were given sufficient weight, and if the subjective circumstances of the applicant were sufficiently taken into account. The Court found that the sentences imposed were within the range of judicial discretion, the consideration of breaches of recognisance was not erroneous, the alternatives to full-time custody were appropriately weighed, the pleas of guilty were adequately considered, and the applicant's subjective circumstances were sufficiently taken into account. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

This case demonstrates the Court of Criminal Appeal's approach to assessing the severity of sentences and the factors considered in determining an appropriate punishment. The Court emphasised the importance of individual culpability, the nature of the offences, and the sentencing judge's discretion in setting the sentence. The Court also highlighted the significance of taking into account relevant factors such as the breaches of recognisance, alternatives to full-time custody, the pleas of guilty, and the applicant's subjective circumstances. In this case, the Court found that the sentences imposed were not unduly harsh and did not constitute an error in the sentencing process.

Orders