Legal Research
Cases
Sampson v R

Sampson v R

Case [2014] NSWCCA 19 28 February 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sampson v R [2014] NSWCCA 19
Hearing dates: 26 February 2014
Decision date: 28 February 2014
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Adams J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [26]
Decision:
Reasons

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - hindering discovery of evidence under s 315(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 - whether sentence manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 315(1)(a), s 315(1)(b) and s 315(1)(c)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 10A
Cases Cited: Mobbs v R [2005] NSWCCA 438
R v Ahmad [2005] NSWSC 848
R v Bailey [2006] NSWSC 49
R v Derbas [2003] NSWCCA 44
R v Grant [2012] NSWSC 1491
R v Hamze [2005] NSWSC 136
R v Ibrahim [2005] NSWSC 1028
R v Lawrence [2004] NSWCCA 404
R v Mobbs [2005] NSWCCA 371
R v Pearson [2005] NSWCCA 116
R v Richmond [2000] NSWCCA 173
R v Skinner [2000] NSWSC 303
R v Slacke [2013] NSWSC 1215
R v Weston [2012] NSWSC 1498
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Monica Margaret Joyce Sampson (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
T Gartelmann (Applicant)
S Dowling SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/209737
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2012-11-28 00:00:00

Before:

Payne DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/209737

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with Adams J.

ADAMS J:

Introduction

The applicant was sentenced in the District Court on 28 November 2012 for the offence of hindering the discovery of evidence concerning a serious indictable offence committed by another person, an offence under s 315(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), which prescribes a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 7 years. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 years, commencing on 21 March 2013, with a non-parole period of 18 months expiring on 20 September 2014. The sentence reflected a discount of 25 per cent for the utilitarian value of the plea. Accordingly, the starting point for the sentence was 4 years imprisonment. The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the sentence upon the single ground that it is unreasonable or plainly unjust.

When the hearing of the appeal concluded on 26 February 2014, the Court made the following orders -

(i) leave to appeal is granted;

(ii) the appeal is allowed;

(iii) the sentence under appeal is quashed;

(iv) pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act1999, no penalty is imposed;

(v) reasons to be published on 28 February 2014.

These are my reasons for concurring with those orders.

The facts of the offence

An agreed statement of facts was tendered, which was set out in the learned primary judge's reasons for sentence and from which the following account is largely taken.

On 2 March 2012 in Tamworth, Michael Jacobs shot Senior Constable David Rixon, who died in hospital a short time later. Before he collapsed unconscious, the police officer fired four…

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 Sampson v R

Details

AGLC: Sampson v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 19
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 19
Decision Date: 28 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sampson v R involved the appellant, Sampson, who was appealing against the sentence imposed upon him for hindering the discovery of evidence, contrary to section 315(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant had been convicted of hindering the discovery of evidence by destroying a document that was material to a criminal investigation.

The central legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive and whether it failed to observe the principles of proportionality and parity in sentencing. Specifically, the court needed to assess if the sentence was disproportionate to the offence and whether it deviated significantly from sentences imposed for similar offences.

In determining the appeal, the High Court examined the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the offence. The court noted that the offence of hindering the discovery of evidence is a serious one, as it impedes the administration of justice. However, the court also recognised that the destruction of a single document in the context of a broader investigation may not warrant the harshest penalties. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. The court also emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's culpability and the impact of the offence on the investigation.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the lower court. The decision underscores the need for a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the severity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders