Harrison J at [1]; R A Hulme J at [2]; Wright J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Grant the applicant leave to appeal against sentence.
(2) Allow the appeal against sentence.
(3) The sentences imposed in the District Court on 16 July 2019 are quashed.
(4) The applicant is sentenced as follows:
(a) In respect of sequence 2, imprisonment for 9 months commencing on 16 March 2019 and expiring on 15 December 2019. (b) In respect of sequence 1, imprisonment with a non-parole period of 1 year and 2 months commencing on 16 May 2019 and expiring on 15 July 2020 and a balance of the term of 1 year and 1 month expiring on 15 August 2021. The earliest date the applicant will become entitled to release on parole is 16 July 2020.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Appeal against sentence – Whether sentencing judge failed to have regard to utilitarian value of early guilty pleas – Error conceded – Whether lesser sentence warranted on the basis of material before the Court – Appeal against sentence allowed – Resentence with 25% discount for early plea
Solicitors: Legal Aid NSW (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):
2016/330289
Decision under appeal
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Criminal
Date of Decision:
16 July 2019
Before:
Harris DCJ
File Number(s):
2016/330289
Judgment
HARRISON J: I agree with Wright J.
R A HULME J: I agree with Wright J.
WRIGHT J: Mr Oliver Valentine, the applicant, has applied for leave pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) to appeal against sentences imposed by Harris DCJ in the District Court at Campbelltown on 16 July 2019.
Background
The applicant was arrested on 4 November 2016 and was charged with two offences: one of possessing child abuse material; and, one of disseminating child abuse material. He was granted conditional bail on the following day.
On 25 October 2017 at Campbelltown Local Court, the applicant pleaded guilty in respect of each offence, whereupon he 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 Valentine v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Valentine v R [2020] NSWCCA 116
Case
[2020] NSWCCA 116
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Valentine, appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal concerned the adequacy of the sentence given, with specific contention that the judge did not sufficiently consider the utilitarian benefits of an early guilty plea. The respondent, the Crown, did not oppose the appeal on its merits but conceded an error in the sentencing process.
The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge indeed failed to adequately weigh the value of an early guilty plea, and if so, whether a lesser sentence was warranted based on the evidence presented. The court examined the sentencing principles and the guidelines set forth in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). It also reviewed the case law concerning the significance of early guilty pleas in sentencing.
In its judgment, the court acknowledged that the sentencing judge had indeed failed to give sufficient consideration to the utilitarian value of the appellant's early guilty plea. The court noted that an early guilty plea could lead to a reduction in the sentence, reflecting the benefits to the administration of justice, such as reduced court time and expedited resolution. The court further found that a lesser sentence was warranted given the material before it. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the appellant was to be resentenced with a 25% discount for the early guilty plea. The court ordered that the appellant be resentenced accordingly, reflecting the appropriate discount.