Regina v CJP; Regina v CAD; Regina v MES [2003] NSWCCA 187

Regina v CJP; Regina v CAD; Regina v MES [2003] NSWCCA 187

CJP was not lawfully sentenced because the only open-court pronouncement was an impermissible aggregate sentence for multiple serious indictable offences, and the later written endorsement allocating sentences was made in the absence of the parties and beyond jurisdiction. CAD and MES were not validly sentenced because the sentencing judge purported to impose sentences on 4 December 2002 but did not publish reasons until 28 February 2003, a delay incompatible with the required contemporaneity between sentence and reasons. All purported sentences were not according to law and the proceedings had to be remitted for sentencing with contemporaneous reasons.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeals Against Alleged Inadequacy of Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues After District Court Sentencing Proceedings
Outcome
Purported sentences quashed; sentence proceedings for CJP, CAD and MES remitted to the District Court of New South Wales (Criminal Jurisdiction) for sentence according to law, including publication of contemporaneous reasons; Crown appeals quashed.
Legal Topics
['validity of Sentence' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'presence of Accused at Sentencing' 'contemporaneous Reasons for Sentence' 'remittal for Sentence' 'non Parole Periods' 'periodic Detention']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['validity of Sentence' 'crown Appeal Against Sentence' 'presence of Accused at Sentencing' 'contemporaneous Reasons for Sentence' 'remittal for Sentence' 'non Parole Periods' 'periodic Detention']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeals Against Alleged Inadequacy of Sentences / Court of Criminal Appeal Determination of Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues After District Court Sentencing Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentences endorsed by the District Court judge on a committal for sentence form in the absence of the parties were validly imposed on CJP.' 'Whether a delay of almost three months between the purported imposition of sentences and publication of reasons invalidated the sentencing proceedings for CAD and MES.' 'Whether the matters should be remitted to the District Court for sentence according to law with contemporaneous reasons.']

Ratio Decidendi

CJP was not lawfully sentenced because the only open-court pronouncement was an impermissible aggregate sentence for multiple serious indictable offences, and the later written endorsement allocating sentences was made in the absence of the parties and beyond jurisdiction. CAD and MES were not validly sentenced because the sentencing judge purported to impose sentences on 4 December 2002 but did not publish reasons until 28 February 2003, a delay incompatible with the required contemporaneity between sentence and reasons. All purported sentences were not according to law and the proceedings had to be remitted for sentencing with contemporaneous reasons.

Court Disposition

Purported sentences quashed; sentence proceedings for CJP, CAD and MES remitted to the District Court of New South Wales (Criminal Jurisdiction) for sentence according to law, including publication of contemporaneous reasons; Crown appeals quashed.

Orders

  • ['In the matter of CJP: Declaration that sentences purportedly imposed at the Campbelltown District Court on 4 December 2002 and 28 February 2003 were not according to law and accordingly are quashed.' 'In the matter of CJP: Pursuant to s 12(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 the sentence proceedings in R v CJP...