R V Jamieson [2009] NSWLC 11

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: R V Jamieson [2009] NSWLC 11

JURISDICTION: Criminal

PARTIES: Police JAMIESON, Mark

FILE NUMBER:

PLACE OF HEARING: Downing Centre

DATE OF DECISION: 06/16/2009

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Heilpern

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Suspended Sentence – Sentence Correction

ss 12 and 43 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 LEGISLATION CITED: Road Transport (Safety and Management) Act 1999 Road Transport (General) Act 2005

CASES CITED: R v Cooke; Cooke v R [2007] NSWCCA 184 Erceg v the District Court of New South Wales & Virgin v the District Court of New South Wales & Anor [2003] NSWCA 379

TEXTS CITED:

REPRESENTATION: Ms Kennedy, Police Prosecutor, for the Police Mr Behan, Solicitor for the Jamieson, Aboriginal Legal Service

ORDERS: There has been a sentencing error, in that the maximum penalty for the offence was nine months imprisonment.

Reasons for Decision

1 Mark Jamieson has a significant criminal record, and comes before the court apparently in breach of a suspended sentence bond pursuant to s12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 due to the commission of fresh offences. He has pleaded guilty to these fresh offences. His solicitor Mr Behan has submitted that the sentence pursuant to s12 is in error, and ought to be corrected by this court prior to the defendant being sentenced for the fresh offences. Mr Behan makes preliminary submissions that the corrected sentence ought to be a bond pursuant to s9 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. If the corrected sentence is anything higher on the scale of penalties than that, Mr Behan has instructions to appeal that corrected sentence, and thus seeks to have the fresh matters adjourned pending that appeal. He also queries the starting date of any corrected sentence if it is a custodial sentence, suspended or otherwise. 2 The issues to be determined are A. Has there been a sentencing error, and if so