Legal Research
Cases
SJ v Regina

SJ v Regina

Case [2011] NSWCCA 160 14 July 2011

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentencing

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: SJ v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 160
Hearing dates: 14 July 2011
Decision date: 14 July 2011
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1, 42, 44]
Buddin J at [2]
Harrison J at [43]
Decision:
Extend the time for seeking leave to appeal up to and including 6 May 2011.
Grant leave to appeal.
Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords: Criminal law - offence of aggravated robbery - whether error in finding that applicant was not remorseful - whether principles governing sentencing of young offender applied.
Legislation Cited: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Alvares v R [2011] NSWCCA 33
BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379
Hili and Jones v R (2010) 272 ALR 465
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
JT v R [2011] NSWCCA 128
KT v R (2008) 182 A Crim R 571
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
R v LNT [2005] NSWCCA 307
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
MW v R [2010] NSWCCA 324
The Queen v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: SJ (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
J Watts (Applicant)
F Veltro (Respondent)
Solicitors:
C Hunter (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/5107
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2010-02-04 00:00:00

Before:

English DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/5107

Judgment

BATHURST CJ : I will invite Buddin J to give the first judgment.

BUDDIN J

Introduction

The applicant, who was a juvenile at the time of the offence, seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court by Judge English. It followed his plea of guilty to an offence of robbery committed on 26 July 2008 in circumstances of aggravation, namely that the victim was wounded. The offence attracts a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment. On 4 February 2010 the applicant was sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years and 2 months to date from 10 December 2009 with a head sentence of 5 years 11 months and 12 days. His non-parole period is thus due to expire on 9 February 2013. The sentence was backdated to the date upon which the applicant was remanded in custody, which was at the end of the sentencing hearing. The sentence was structured in such a fashion as to give effect to a finding of "special circumstances". The sentencing judge made an order, pursuant to s 19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 that the applicant, who was 17 at the time of the offence, was to serve his sentence in a juvenile detention centre until he reached the age of 21.

The sentence proceedings

Although there was agreement about some aspects of the Crown case, other matters remained in dispute. That dispute was resolved by the sentencing judge after her Honour heard evidence from two witnesses called by the Crown and from the applicant.

A short statement of facts was…

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 SJ v Regina

Details

AGLC: SJ v Regina [2011] NSWCCA 160
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 160
Decision Date: 14 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of SJ v Regina, the applicant, SJ, appealed against his conviction and sentence for the offence of aggravated robbery. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal where the primary issues revolved around the sentencing process and the application of certain legal principles. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the applicant did not display remorse and whether the principles governing the sentencing of young offenders were properly applied.

The central legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, the court had to examine whether the trial judge's finding that the applicant was not remorseful was erroneous. The second issue was whether the trial judge appropriately applied the principles relevant to sentencing young offenders. These principles include the need to consider the rehabilitation potential of the offender and the potential for deterrence.

The court found that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the applicant was not remorseful. The evidence presented at trial supported this finding, as the applicant showed little to no genuine remorse for his actions. Regarding the sentencing principles, the court held that the trial judge had correctly applied the relevant principles. The trial judge had considered the factors pertinent to sentencing a young offender and had balanced these considerations appropriately with the need for punishment and deterrence. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders