Regina v Neville [2001] NSWCCA 146

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Neville [2001] NSWCCA 146 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60569/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 10/4/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 April 2001

PARTIES : REGINA v ROBERT NEVILLE JUDGMENT OF : Giles JA at 1;29;31; Studdert J at 30; O'Keefe J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70011/99 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Adams J OFFICER :

COUNSEL : C K Maxwell QC - for Crown W C Perracini SC - for Appellant SOLICITORS : S E O'Connor - for Crown Ross Hill & Associates - for Appellant CATCHWORDS : Soliciting a person to inflict grievous bodily harm on another person - Appeal against sentence - Principles applicable to interferring with sentencing discretion - Effect of mental abnormality on sentence - Late plea of guilty - Monetary motivation - Personal deterence LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900, s.26 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peco Wallsend Limited (1985-1986) 162 CLR 24 CASES CITED: R v Merritt [2000] NSWCCA (unreported CCA, 13 September 2000) R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWLR 383 Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465 DECISION : Leave to appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

No: 60569/00

GILES JA STUDDERT J O'KEEFE J

Tuesday, 10 April 2001

REGINA v ROBERT ERNEST NEVILLE

JUDGMENT

1 GILES JA: I will ask O'Keefe J to give the first judgment. 2 O'KEEFE J: On 11 October 1999 Adams J (the Judge) sentenced Robert Ernest Neville (the appellant) to a term of imprisonment of seven years and two months, to commence on 26 February 1998 with a non-parole period of four years from that date. The appellant, who has been in custody since his arrest on 26 February 1998, will thus be eligible for parole on 25 February 2002. It is against this sentence that the present appeal has been brought. 3 The ground of appeal as filed was that the sentence was manifestly excessive. However, in the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant the grounds of appeal were expanded to include a ground that the "Judge placed too great an emphasis upon the issue of personal deterrence".