R v Sloane [2001] NSWCCA 421

Reported Decision : 126 A Crim R 188

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Sloane [2001] NSWCCA 421 revised - 17/10/2001 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60518/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 3 October 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 3 October 2001

PARTIES : Regina Adam Claude Sloane JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJ at CL at 1; Studdert J at 49; Bell J at 50

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 61/0068 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Goldring DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Mr L. Lamprati for Crown Ms E Fullerton for Applicant SOLICITORS : S E O'Connor D J Humphreys CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - appeals - Crown appeal against sentence - whether sentence manifestly lenient - assault - where reasons for sentence inadequate - failure to make clear and explicit findings of fact - purpose of report of trial Judge to Court of Criminal Appeal - whether sentence commensurate with objective gravity of crime - whether insufficient weight given to element of general deterrence - whether sentence by way of periodic detention unduly lenient - error of law - whether court should interfere - principle of double jeopardy - commencement of rehabilitation - delay - no interference with sentence - appeal dismissed. CASES CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912 ss 5D, 11 DECISION : Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

No 60518/01

WOOD CJ AT CL STUDDERT J BELL J

WEDNESDAY 3 OCTOBER 2001 REGINA v ADAM CLAUDE SLOANE

JUDGMENT 1 WOOD CJ AT CL: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against the sentence imposed upon the respondent by his Honour, Judge Goldring in the District Court, on 22 June 2001. 2 That sentence was passed following the respondent's conviction, after trial, of an offence of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon an off duty police officer, Senior Constable Clive Swanston. Two offences of assault were committed upon two other men in the course of the same incident in which Senior Constable Swanston received his injuries. They were taken into account on a Form 1. 3 The sentence imposed was one of imprisonment for two years and eleven months to be served by way of periodic detention. A non-parole period of two years was set. In imposing this sentence, his Honour took into account a period of broken pre-sentence custody amounting to sixty-five days. It may be observed that since the sentence was passed the respondent has performed the equivalent of nine weeks of periodic detention.