Stephens v R (No 2) - [2022] NSWCCA 227

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Stephens v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 227
Hearing dates: 9 July 2021
Date of orders: 14 October 2022
Decision date: 25 October 2022
Before: Simpson AJA;
Davies J;
Button J
Decision:
(1) The applicant is sentenced to an aggregate head sentence of imprisonment for 4 years 6 months commencing on 26 August 2019 and expiring on 25 February 2024, with a non-parole period of 2 years 9 months that expired on 25 May 2022.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL APPEAL – remittal for re-sentence from the High Court of Australia – High Court quashed all convictions subject to High Court appeal – remaining convictions not subject to appeal require re-sentence – no reason to depart from previous indicative sentences – no reason to depart from previous ratio between head sentence and non-parole period – applicant re-sentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Stephens v R [2021] NSWCCA 152; (2021) 290 A Crim R 303
Stephens v The Queen [2022] HCA 31; (2022) 96 ALJR 871

Category: Consequential orders
Parties: Peter Leonard Stephens (Applicant)
Regina (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
A Cook (Applicant)
D Kell SC & M W R Adams (Crown)
Solicitors:
Macedone Legal (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2017/331553
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

13 November 2019

Before:

Woodburne SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2017/331553

JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

Introduction

On 14 October 2022, this Court resentenced Mr Peter Leonard Stephens (the applicant) for three counts of child sexual assault committed many years ago. That was after a successful appeal to the High Court of Australia against conviction relating to a number of other counts reflecting the same kind of offending against the same victim. As the applicant was eligible for consideration for parole pursuant to previous orders made by the Court, orders were pronounced with reasons to be given later. The following are our reasons.

Background

The applicant was convicted of seven offences in the District Court after a trial by jury. On 13 November 2019, he was sentenced by Judge Woodburne SC to an aggregate head sentence of imprisonment for 7 years 9 months, to commence on 26 August 2019 and expire on 25 May 2027, with a non-parole period of 4 years 9 months. His first eligibility for consideration for release to parole was to arise on 25 May 2024.
He appealed against four of those convictions to this Court. On 9 July 2021, one only of those convictions was quashed, with the result that re-sentence was required: Stephens v R [2021] NSWCCA 152; (2021) 290 A Crim R 303. The new aggregate head sentence was imprisonment for 6 years, to expire on 25 August 2025, with a new non-parole period of 3 years 9 months to expire on 25 May 2023.
On appeal to the High Court, the three further convictions were also quashed, and the…

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 Stephens v R (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Stephens v R (No 2) [2022] NSWCCA 227
Case: [2022] NSWCCA 227
Decision Date: 25 October 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stephens v R (No 2) involved the applicant, who was appealing against his criminal conviction. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant had previously had his convictions quashed by the High Court, but the remaining convictions required re-sentencing. The legal issues that arose in this case involved determining the appropriate re-sentencing for the applicant, considering the indicative sentences previously set out, and the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period.

The High Court considered the legal principles surrounding the re-sentencing of the applicant. The court noted that there was no reason to depart from the previous indicative sentences and the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period. The court also considered the principles of proportionality and consistency in sentencing, ensuring that the re-sentence was just and appropriate for the crimes committed. Ultimately, the High Court determined that the previous indicative sentences and the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period were appropriate, and there was no reason to depart from these.

As a result of the High Court's decision, the applicant was re-sentenced in accordance with the previous indicative sentences and the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period. The court's reasoning was based on the principles of proportionality and consistency in sentencing, ensuring that the re-sentence was just and appropriate for the crimes committed. The final orders of the court were that the applicant be re-sentenced in line with the previous indicative sentences and the ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period.

Orders