Citation: Regina v Lennox [2000] NSWCCA 449
Court: NSW Court of Criminal Appeal
Date: 27 October 2000
Judge(s): Wood CJ at CL; Whealy J
Background
The appellant pleaded guilty in the District Court to one count of attempted robbery under the Crimes Act 1900, with a second matter involving possession of housebreaking implements taken into account at sentencing. The offence arose from a daylight attack on a woman in King Street, Newtown, shortly after she withdrew $650 from an ATM. The appellant grabbed at her purse, struggled with her, and she was forced to the ground before he fled. He was chased and detained by a bystander until police arrived.
Judge Shadbolt sentenced the appellant to five years penal servitude, comprising a minimum term of four years and an additional term of one year. The sentencing judge deliberately departed from the standard one-third ratio for the additional term, finding little purpose in a longer supervision period given the appellant's history.
The appellant sought leave to appeal, arguing the sentence was affected by several errors and was manifestly excessive.
Legal Issues
- Whether the sentencing judge incorrectly characterised the level of violence by finding the victim was "knocked to the ground"
- Whether the sentencing judge failed to give any weight to the appellant's guilty plea
- Whether the reduction of the additional term below the statutory one-third ratio was an error, given the appellant's claimed need for a structured residential program
- Whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to Judicial Commission statistics and the relatively low level of violence involved
Decision
On the first ground, Whealy J found no error. Reading the sentencing judge's reasons as a whole, the finding that the victim was "knocked to the ground" was supported by multiple witness accounts describing the appellant pushing and struggling with the victim until she fell. The description accurately captured what occurred during a sustained physical attack.
On the guilty plea, Whealy J noted the appellant was sentenced before the guideline judgment in The Queen v Thomson (2000) NSWCCA 309, so no criticism arose from non-compliance with those guidelines. In circumstances where the appellant was caught at the scene, made full admissions in a recorded interview, and had quickly been committed for sentence, the plea was properly characterised as "a recognition of the inevitable" following The Queen v Winchester (1992). The Court was not persuaded that the sentencing judge had failed to account for the plea's utilitarian value.
On the question of special circumstances, Whealy J found no error in the judge's decision to extend the minimum term and shorten the additional term. The appellant's lengthy criminal history, his repeated re-offending while on parole or recognisance, and the limited utility of supervision given that history all supported the approach taken.
The manifest excess argument was also rejected. The statistical material from the Judicial Commission was not determinative, and the Court noted the appellant's significant prior record. Wood CJ at CL added that the appellant had repeatedly been granted parole and recognisances, re-offending on each occasion, and was subject to a recognisance at the time of this offence. No appealable error was established.
Orders Made
- Leave to appeal granted.
- Appeal dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A guilty plea entered in circumstances where an offender is caught at the scene, makes full admissions, and faces overwhelming evidence may be treated as "a recognition of the inevitable," warranting little weight beyond its utilitarian value.
- In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal confirmed that a sentencing judge's characterisation of physical conduct must be read in the context of the full reasons and the totality of witness evidence, not in isolation.
- The guideline judgment in The Queen v Thomson does not apply retrospectively to sentences imposed before it was handed down.
- Under the principles confirmed in Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465, a prior criminal record is relevant not only to deny leniency but also to demonstrate a continuing attitude of disobedience to the law, though it must not produce a sentence disproportionate to the gravity of the current offence.
- No error arose from reducing the additional term below the standard one-third ratio where the sentencing judge found the offender's history made an extended supervision period of limited utility.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 94, 114(b), 344A
Cases:
- The Queen v Thomson (2000) NSWCCA 309
- The Queen v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345
- The Queen v Ranse (NSWCCA, 8 August 1994, unreported)
- Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465
- The Queen v GDR (1994-1995) 35 NSWLR 376
- R v Taylor [2000] NSWCCA 442