Citation: Regina v Heslehurst [1999] NSWCCA 183
Court: Court of Criminal Appeal, New South Wales
Date: 30 June 1999
Judge(s): Grove J, Abadee J, Barr J
Background
The appellant had pleaded guilty before Judge Graham in the Parramatta District Court to three counts of obtaining money by deception. A further 41 charges, taken into account on Form 1 documents, included 40 further counts of obtaining money by deception and one count of failing to appear. The appellant's method was to approach members of the public posing as a debt collector with access to repossessed vehicles, collect payment, and deliver nothing.
Judge Graham sentenced the appellant to an effective term of three years imprisonment, structured as a minimum term of 18 months commencing 17 November 1997 and an additional term of 18 months. The appellant had since been released at the expiry of the minimum term and was at large at the time of the appeal.
The appellant lodged an appeal against sentence but did not appear before the Court of Criminal Appeal. He had also failed to appear on an earlier listing in March 1999 while still in custody, though on that occasion his absence was attributed to hospitalisation. The appeal proceeded on the basis of written submissions filed by the unrepresented appellant.
Legal Issues
- Whether the guilty pleas were improperly entered as a result of an alleged agreement between the Director of Public Prosecutions and the appellant's lawyer regarding the number of charges and sentencing outcomes.
- Whether the sentencing Judge failed to take adequate account of the appellant's medical condition, including the likely consequence of serving time in maximum security or a prison hospital.
Decision
Grove J, with whom Abadee J and Barr J agreed, found no substance in either ground of appeal. On the first ground, the appellant asserted in his written submissions that his guilty pleas were entered only because of promises made by the DPP about sentencing arrangements and the number of charges to be pressed. The Court characterised these submissions as an attempt to go behind the guilty pleas, and noted there was no evidence whatsoever to support those assertions. Leave to rely on those grounds was refused.
On the second ground concerning the appellant's health, Grove J noted that the sentencing Judge had in fact engaged at length with the appellant's medical condition in his remarks on sentence. Far from ignoring or inadequately addressing health considerations, his Honour had extended what Grove J described as a "surprisingly generous amount of lenience" to the appellant on that basis. The suggestion that those matters were not fully taken into account was therefore unsupportable on the evidence.
The appeal and the application for leave to appeal against sentence were dismissed.
Orders Made
- Appeal dismissed.
- Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- Bare assertions in written submissions, unsupported by any evidence, are insufficient to establish a ground of appeal seeking to go behind a guilty plea.
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a sentencing judge's treatment of mitigating factors will be upheld where the remarks on sentence demonstrate those factors were genuinely and carefully considered.
- Where an appellant fails to appear, the Court of Criminal Appeal may proceed to determine an appeal on the basis of written submissions alone.
- A persistent history of dishonesty offences is a relevant feature of an appellant's character that the court may take into account when assessing the overall sentencing outcome.
- No error was established simply because the appellant believed a more favourable arrangement had been agreed, in the absence of any supporting evidence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No specific legislation or cases were cited in the judgment or metadata.