Sua v The Queen - [2007] NSWCCA 271

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Sua v R [2007] NSWCCA 271

HEARING DATE(S): 20/08/2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 September 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Santow JA at 1; Hidden J at 2; Howie J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Guilty plea in Local Court - whether discount of 15 per cent sufficient - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether lesser sentence warranted.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s 97(2)
Firearms Act 1996 - ss 62(1)(b), 93G(1)(a)(ii)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 6(3)

CASES CITED: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
R v Sua [2000] NSWCCA 84

PARTIES: Jack Siaki Sua v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3268

COUNSEL: M. Hobart - Crown
C. Davenport - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Applicant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/21/1131

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Viney ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 15/12/2006

2007/3268

SANTOW JA
HIDDEN J
HOWIE J
TUESDAY 4 SEPTEMBER 2007

Jack Siaki SUA v REGINA

Judgment

1 SANTOW JA: I agree with Howie J and the additional remarks of Hidden J.

2 HIDDEN J: It is, of course, disturbing to see a young man sentenced to such a substantial term of imprisonment. Nevertheless, these were very serious crimes, committed by an offender on conditional liberty and with a history of offences of a similar kind. I agree with the orders proposed by Howie J and with his Honour’s reasons.

3 HOWIE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court in respect of seven charges to which the applicant had pleaded guilty in the Local Court. The applicant had been committed for sentence to the District Court where he adhered to his pleas of guilty and was ultimately sentenced on 15 December 2006. The charges for which the applicant was sentenced involved five offences of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, contrary to s 97(2) of the Crimes Act, one offence of possess loaded firearm so as to endanger life, contrary to s 93G(1)(a)(ii) of the Firearms Act and one offence of possess shortened firearm, contrary to s 62(1)(b) of that Act. In respect of the robbery offences the maximum penalty prescribed is imprisonment for 25 years and in respect of each of the firearms offences, the maximum penalty prescribed is imprisonment for 10 years.

4 The applicant was sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of 13 years with an overall non-parole period of 10 years. The first of the sentences commenced on 6 December 2005 and the applicant is eligible to be released to parole on 5 December 2015. In respect of the first two charges of robbery the applicant was sentenced on each to a fixed term of three years imprisonment, the second sentence to be served…

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 Sua v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sua v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 271
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 271
Decision Date: 4 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sua v The Queen involved the defendant Sua, who had entered a guilty plea in the Local Court for a crime which had been committed. The central issue for determination by the court was the appropriate sentencing discount to be applied due to the defendant's guilty plea, as well as whether the sentence imposed was excessive or whether a lesser sentence should be imposed. The Crown argued for a particular sentencing approach, while the defence contended that the discount and the sentence were inadequate and should be reconsidered.

The legal issues addressed by the court included the extent of the discount to be applied for a guilty plea, the criteria for determining if a sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether a lesser sentence was warranted in the circumstances. The court had to weigh the principles of sentencing against the specific facts and nature of the offence, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate and just. The court also had to consider the precedents set by higher courts and the guidelines provided by sentencing legislation and judicial decisions.

The court concluded that the discount applied for the guilty plea was sufficient and did not result in a manifestly excessive sentence. The reasoning was grounded in the specific circumstances of the case and the nature of the offence. The court noted that the sentencing guidelines and precedents supported the discount applied and that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime. The court found that no lesser sentence was warranted given the facts of the case. The final orders of the court affirmed the sentence imposed by the Local Court, recognising its appropriateness and proportionality.

Orders