Valentine v Regina - [2007] NSWCCA 23

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Valentine v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 23

HEARING DATE(S): 1 February 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 February 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 2; Price J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law-sentencing-voluntary disclosure of offences-imminence of discovery-degree of leniency

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 300 (2)

CASES CITED: R v Bell [2005] NSWCCA 81
R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
R v Palinko [2005] NSWCCA 46
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267

PARTIES: Darrin Patrick Valentine
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/2341

COUNSEL: P Barrett - Crown
J Manuell - Applicant

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

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/31/0140

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: McLoughlin DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 3 February 2006

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Regina v Darrin Patrick Valentine

2006/2341

McClellan CJ at CL
Simpson J
Price J
12 February 2007

DARRIN PATRICK VALENTINE v REGINA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Price J.

2 SIMPSON J: I agree with Price J.

3 PRICE J: The applicant Darrin Patrick Valentine seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him by McLoughlin DCJ in the District Court at Gosford on 3 February 2006.

4 On 19 May 2005, the applicant pleaded guilty in the Local Court to three counts of using a false instrument with intent contrary to s 300(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and confirmed his pleas in the District Court.

5 An offence contrary to s 300(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment of ten years.

6 Two matters on a Form 1 of using a false instrument with intent were taken into account on sentence.

7 The Judge (taking into account the matters on the Form 1) on the first count sentenced the applicant to imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years commencing on 3 November 2006 and expiring on 2 November 2008 with a balance of term of two years expiring on 2 November 2010. On the second count, a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period of eighteen months commencing on 3 February 2006 and expiring on 2 August 2007, with a balance of term of eighteen months expiring on 2 February 2009 was imposed. On the third count the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of eighteen months commencing on 3 May 2007 and expiring on 2 November 2008, with a balance of term of 18 months expiring on 2 May 2010.

8 As a result of partial accumulation, the total effective sentence was imprisonment for four years and nine months, with a non-parole period of two years and nine months.

The offences

9 An agreed statement of facts was tendered on sentence which the Judge set out in his sentencing remarks and may be conveniently summarised.

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 Regina

Details

AGLC: Valentine v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 23
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 23
Decision Date: 12 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Valentine v Regina, the appellant was convicted of multiple criminal offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the appropriate degree of leniency that should be applied in sentencing, particularly in light of the appellant's voluntary disclosure of the offences prior to discovery. The appellant argued that his voluntary disclosure should result in a significant reduction in sentence, whereas the prosecution maintained that any reduction should be modest. The court was required to balance the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence.

The central legal issue was the extent to which the court should consider the voluntary disclosure of offences by the appellant when assessing the degree of leniency to be applied. The appellant's counsel argued that the voluntary disclosure demonstrated remorse and cooperation, and thus warranted a significant reduction in sentence. Conversely, the prosecution contended that the voluntary disclosure, while a mitigating factor, should not result in a drastic reduction in sentence as it did not entirely negate the gravity of the crimes committed. The court had to weigh the various factors and principles of sentencing law to arrive at a just outcome.

The High Court determined that while voluntary disclosure is a mitigating factor, it does not automatically entitle the offender to a substantial reduction in sentence. The court emphasised that sentencing must be tailored to the individual circumstances of the case, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's culpability, and the principles of sentencing. In this instance, the court found that a modest reduction in sentence was appropriate, considering the appellant's voluntary disclosure and other mitigating factors, but not to the extent argued by the appellant. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach that recognised the importance of voluntary disclosure while maintaining the need for a proportionate and just sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld with a minor modification to reflect the court's assessment of the appropriate degree of leniency. The appellant's sentence was thus adjusted slightly, but not to the extent he had sought, affirming the principle that voluntary disclosure is a mitigating factor that warrants consideration in sentencing but does not automatically lead to significant leniency.

Orders