Regina v Tony Sandnes - [2001] NSWCCA 385

CITATION: Regina v Tony Sandnes [2001] NSWCCA 385

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60574/00

HEARING DATE(S): 25 September 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 September 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Tony Sandnes

JUDGMENT OF: Powell JA at 1 & 21; Sully J at 2; Bell J at 22

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70055/99

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Dunford J

COUNSEL : L.M.B. Lamprati - Crown
J. S. Stratton - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
D. J. Humphreys - Appellant

CASES CITED:
Regina v Houlten
Regina v Thomson
Regina v Gregory Peter Hayes (2001) NSW CCA 358
Regina v Ellis
Regina v Cartwright
Regina v Winchester

DECISION: Extension of time granted; Leave to appeal granted; Substantive appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60574/00

POWELL JA

SULLY J

BELL J

REGINA v TONY SANDNES

JUDGMENT

1 POWELL JA: I will ask Sully J to deliver the first judgment.

2 SULLY J: Mr Tony Sandnes applies for leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment that was passed upon him by Dunford J of this Court on 18 August 2000.

3 Mr Sandnes requires an extension of time in which to bring that application. I would myself favour granting the necessary extension in order that the application might be dealt with on its merits.

4 The sentence in fact passed was a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 11 years with an accompanying non-parole period of eight and a half years.

5 On 5 June 2000 the applicant was presented for trial before Dunford J upon an indictment charging that he had, on 9 January 1998, murdered one Donald Foster. The applicant pleaded not guilty; and he was put, accordingly, upon his trial by jury. The Crown opening and the Crown evidence proceeded throughout the day. On the following day it was intimated to the Court that the applicant wished to revise his plea. He was thereupon re-indicted, and pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of the victim, that plea being accepted by the Crown in full discharge of the indictment.

6 The relevant facts are set out as follows in the remarks on sentence of Dunford J

“On 30 December 1997 at about 3pm the deceased then 80 years old, weak and with a number of health problems, was in bed at his home at 16 Vera St, Earlwood when he was bludgeoned with a half brick resulting in severe head injuries from which he bled profusely. He was taken to hospital but died there on 9 January 1998, some 10 days later, as a result of his injuries.

The prisoner gave evidence on the sentencing proceedings and said that he had been addicted to heroin and amphetamines for some years and whilst a patient at Wisteria House, a drug rehabilitation unit, he had formed a relationship with Sue-Ann Foster, the grand-daughter of the deceased and another addict. He said that on 30 December the two of them went to the deceased’s…

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 Tony Sandnes

Details

AGLC: Regina v Tony Sandnes [2001] NSWCCA 385
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 385
Decision Date: 25 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tony Sandnes sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by the Supreme Court. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered two main issues: whether the sentencing judge erred in granting a discount for Sandnes's guilty plea, and whether the sentence imposed was outside the appropriate range for crimes of similar gravity. The Court noted that the crime was of significant brutality, warranting a severe sentence. The sentencing judge had considered the plea of guilty, the offender's remorse, and the impact of drugs at the time of the offence in reducing the sentence. The Court held that the sentencing judge appropriately exercised their discretion and did not err in their approach. While the statistical data suggested that the sentence might be at the higher end of the range, the Court found that it did not fall outside the range of a sound sentencing discretion. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the substantive appeal. The Court also granted an extension of time for Sandnes to bring the appeal.

Orders