Regina v Michael Lenard; Regina v Michael Fail [2006] NSWCCA 345

Regina v Michael Lenard; Regina v Michael Fail [2006] NSWCCA 345

Although no obvious error of principle appeared in the sentencing remarks, the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. Both offences were objectively serious: influencing a witness was a direct affront to the criminal justice system, and demanding money with menaces involved a concerted and frightening campaign. Having regard to Crown appeal principles, some other sentence was warranted in law, so the appeals were allowed, the original sentences quashed, and higher sentences imposed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Crown appeals allowed; sentences quashed and respondents re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['demand Money With Menaces' 'intent to Influence Witness' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'objective Seriousness' 'subjective Circumstances' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['demand Money With Menaces' 'intent to Influence Witness' 'manifest Inadequacy of Sentence' 'general Deterrence' 'objective Seriousness' 'subjective Circumstances' 'totality Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period']

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 Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed on Michael Lenard and Michael Fail for demand money with menaces and doing an act with intent to influence a witness were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the objective seriousness of the offences and gave undue weight to subjective circumstances.' 'Whether the structure of the sentences and non-parole periods involved an inadequate degree of accumulation and an unwarranted departure from the statutory ratio.' 'Whether some other sentence was warranted in law on the Crown appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although no obvious error of principle appeared in the sentencing remarks, the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. Both offences were objectively serious: influencing a witness was a direct affront to the criminal justice system, and demanding money with menaces involved a concerted and frightening campaign. Having regard to Crown appeal principles, some other sentence was warranted in law, so the appeals were allowed, the original sentences quashed, and higher sentences imposed.

Court Disposition

Crown appeals allowed; sentences quashed and respondents re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['In Appeal No. CCA 2006/2168, appeal allowed.' 'In Appeal No. CCA 2006/2168, quash the sentences imposed by the trial judge.' 'Michael Lenard sentenced on count 3, influence witness contrary to s 323(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), to imprisonment for a non-parole period of one year six months from 8 July 2005 to...