Regina v Stott - [2005] NSWCCA 36

CITATION:
Regina v Stott [2005] NSWCCA 36

HEARING DATE(S): 9 February 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

17 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J at 1; Hidden J at 38; Bell J at 39

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - DETENTION OF VICTIM IN VIRTUAL ENSLAVEMENT - CONDUCT EXTENDING OVER THREE YEARS - OFFENDER PREVIOUSLY DEALT WITH LENIENTLY FOR SIMILAR CONDUCT - STATISTICALLY HIGHEST SENTENCE - NO ERROR IN ASSESSMENT BY JUDGE AT FIRST INSTANCE

LEGISLATION CITED:

s 90A Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Chester v The Queen 1988 165 CLR 611
R v Angeles [2001] NSWCCA 515
R v Knight 2002 123 A Crim R 377
Veen v The Queen (No 2) 1987-8 164 CLR 465

PARTIES:
Regina v Wendy Frances Stott

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/2663

COUNSEL:
P.G. Ingram (Crown)
J. Stratton SC (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)
S.E. O'Connor (Applicant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
02/11/0465

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Latham DCJ

2004/2663

GROVE J
HIDDEN J
BELL J
17 February 2005

REGINA v WENDY FRANCES STOTT

Judgment

1 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Latham DCJ in the District Court at Sydney.

2 On 28 May 2003 the applicant was arraigned before her Honour upon an indictment of fifteen counts, all of which, save one, related to offences in which a young woman, CM, was nominated as the victim. The other count nominated her infant son ZM as victim. It is not presently necessary to detail the various counts. After arraignment a voir dire hearing was undertaken in connection with the Crown intention to adduce tendency or coincidence evidence from two women, whom I will refer to as JR and NF. On 2 June her Honour ruled that the evidence of those witnesses would, in substance, be admitted.

3 A trial before the judge and a jury commenced on 3 June. It proceeded until 17 June at which point it was indicated by the Crown Prosecutor that the calling of JR and NF was imminent. The following day counsel for the applicant sought that she be re-arraigned on a new indictment charging a single count pursuant to the now replaced s90A of the Crimes Act 1900 viz:

“For that she between 7 January 1995 and 31 March 1998, at Leppington in the State of New South Wales, did detain with intent to hold CM for advantage to herself.”

4 The section provided a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment unless it be proved that the victim was liberated without sustaining substantial injury in which event it would be reduced to fourteen years imprisonment. Her Honour found the proviso unproved and the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for thirteen years with a non parole period of nine years.

5 Two grounds were argued in support of the application - the first asserted that the sentence was manifestly excessive and the second, that her Honour erred in finding “the risk of re-offending is…

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 Stott

Details

AGLC: Regina v Stott [2005] NSWCCA 36
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 36
Decision Date: 17 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Stott is a case where the defendant was convicted of a crime involving the prolonged detention of a victim in conditions amounting to virtual enslavement over a period of three years. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence handed down by the trial judge was appropriate given the severity and duration of the crime, as well as the offender's previous lenient treatment for similar conduct. The court was required to balance the need for deterrence and the protection of society against the principle of proportionality in sentencing.

In addressing these issues, the court examined the circumstances of the crime, which involved the systematic abuse and exploitation of the victim over an extended period. The court also considered the offender's history, including a prior conviction for similar conduct, for which a lenient sentence had been imposed. The judges analysed whether the original sentence had been inadequate and whether a harsher penalty was justified to ensure adequate deterrence and to reflect the gravity of the present offence. The court concluded that the trial judge had correctly assessed the circumstances and that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the crime, and represented the highest statistically available penalty for such offences.

Having considered the arguments and the evidence, the court found that there was no error in the trial judge's assessment of the sentence. The court upheld the original sentence, confirming its appropriateness in the context of the offender's extensive criminal history and the severity of the current offence. The High Court determined that the sentence was both proportionate and necessary to uphold the principles of justice and to provide adequate deterrence. The final orders of the court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for a strong judicial response.

Orders