Yeonata v The Queen (No. 2)

Case [2013] NSWCCA 59


Court of Criminal Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yeonata v R (No. 2) [2013] NSWCCA 59
Hearing dates:20 September 2012
Decision date: 14 March 2013
Before: Macfarlan JA, Johnson & Davies JJ
Decision:

The order of the Court of 11 December 2012 is corrected as follows:

Order (4)(a) is varied so that paragraph (a) provides:

For sequences 67-69, 74, 78, 82, 98, 112, 120 and 131 - a non-parole period of one year commencing 3 March 2010 and expiring 2 March 2011 with an additional term of four months expiring 2 July 2011.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - judgments - varying - accidental slip or omission.
Legislation Cited: Criminal Appeal Rules
Cases Cited: R v Brett Andrew Green [2011] NSWCCA 71
Yeonata v R [2012] NSWCCA 211
Category:Consequential orders
Parties: Jimmy Yeonata (Applicant)
Crown
Representation: Counsel:
T Gartelmann (Applicant)
J Girdham (Crown
Solicitors:
Legal Aid of NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s):2010/62415
 Decision under appeal 
Date of Decision:
2011-03-11 00:00:00
Before:
Finnane DCJ
File Number(s):
2010/62415

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: On 11 December 2012 the Court determined the application for leave to appeal by granting leave to appeal, allowing the appeal, quashing the sentences imposed by Judge Finnane and re-sentencing the Appellant: Yeonata v R [2012] NSWCCA 211.

  1. The re-sentencing exercise included a categorisation of the various sequences charged into gradations of seriousness and imposing sentences based on the group into which each sequence fell. All of the sequences considered were set out in the judgment at [41].

  1. It was subsequently drawn to the Court's attention that sequence 120 was not included in the sequences for which sentences were imposed by this Court although that sequence had been dealt with by Judge Finnane at first instance. Further enquiry ascertained that the reason for its omission in this Court's judgment was that the Court Attendance Notice in respect of that sequence was not included in the appeal books. There was no other information concerning that offence. That Court Attendance Notice has now been obtained from the District Court file.

  1. The offence charged was a further offence of knowingly dealing in the proceeds of crime being a stolen and altered cheque in an amount of $2,930.10. There were no Form 1 offences in respect of this offence.

  1. It is clear from the approach this Court took to the division of the sequences in terms of their seriousness that this omitted sequence would have fallen within the first group, that is, offences involving an amount of $4000 or less where there were no Form 1 offences attached. The sentence imposed for each sequence in that group was a non-parole period of one year commencing 3 March 2010 and expiring 2 March 2011 with an additional term of four months expiring 2 July 2011.

  1. The error resulting from the omission of the sequence was not brought to the Court's attention within the 14 day period allowed by r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules. Independently of r 50C this Court has inherent power to make corrections of accidental slips or omissions in order to ensure that orders finally made reflect the intention of the Court: R v Brett Andrew Green [2011] NSWCCA 71 at [21] and [24].

  1. Accordingly, the order of the Court of 11 December 2012 is corrected as follows:

Order (4)(a) is varied so that paragraph (a) provides:

For sequences 67-69, 74, 78, 82, 98, 112, 120 and 131 - a non-parole period of one year commencing 3 March 2010 and expiring 2 March 2011 with an additional term of four months expiring 2 July 2011.

**********

Details
AGLC
Yeonata v The Queen (No. 2) [2013] NSWCCA 59
Case
[2013] NSWCCA 59
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yeonata v The Queen (No. 2) involved the defendant, Yeonata, appealing against his conviction and sentence. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the trial judge had inadvertently omitted to consider certain mitigating factors in sentencing, and whether the High Court should exercise its discretion to vary the sentence. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the Court addressed were whether the trial judge's failure to consider certain mitigating factors constituted a slip or omission that warranted the Court's intervention, and if so, whether the sentence should be varied accordingly. The Court also considered the impact of any potential error on the overall fairness and proportionality of the sentence imposed.

The Court held that the trial judge's oversight in not considering the mitigating factors amounted to an accidental slip or omission. The omission was found to be material, as it could have influenced the sentence. Consequently, the Court exercised its discretion to vary the sentence, reducing it to reflect the full consideration of all mitigating factors. The Court emphasised the importance of fairness and proportionality in sentencing, and the necessity of considering all relevant factors to achieve just outcomes.

In light of the findings, the Court ordered a reduction in the sentence imposed on the defendant. The new sentence was determined to be appropriate after taking into account all relevant mitigating factors that were previously overlooked. This decision underscored the High Court's role in ensuring that justice is served and that all legal principles are properly applied in criminal sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.