Case name: R v Sheu [2018] NSWCCA 86
Date:
2nd of May 2018
Court:
Court of Criminal Appeal
Presiding Officer: Hoeben CJ; Walton J; R A Hulme J
Reason: Appeal hearing
In R v Sheu, the leave to appeal made by applicant, Simon Sheu for the sentence imposed upon him in the District Court on 16th of September 2016 was refused at the 2nd of May 2018 hearing. The applicant was previously sentenced by Williams in the District Court for two counts of break, enter and steal (s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)), three counts of aggravated break, enter and steal (s 112(2)) and once for taking part in a criminal group (s 93T(1)). The sole ground of the proposed appeal made to the Court of Criminal Appeal was that the applicant seeks leave because he has
…show more content…
This organized criminal group targeted ATMs and safes in Sydney, NSW as well as in other places in NSW and Australia. The three offenders were of Albanian descent, who were in Australia on tourist visas. The applicant and Mr Boka had no recorded criminal history while Mr Nika had a conviction, which impacted the length of his imposed sentence to be longer than the others. A sentencing problem arises when there is a joint enterprise in crime and the judge issues a different sentence to each offender depending on their past offences and likelihood of re-offending.
A sentencing and punishment issue may arise in criminal procedure when two different people are given two different penalties. The judge in the District Court stated that Mr Nika should not be extended leniency because he had prior convictions. It was also noted that Mr Boka and the applicant should not be extended leniency because they had prior similar offending in Victoria for which they were not yet dealt with. Different judges pass different judgements based on their interpretation of the
The collateral consequences of criminal convictions rather than the direct result are known as “invisible punishments”. In his article “Invisible Punishment”, Travis discusses the unintended consequences that punishes an individual beyond the formal sentence. Criminals are not only punished once for their crimes, they are punished twice, and these invisible punishments follow them throughout their lifetime. Travis explains that these punishments are a form of “Social exclusion”, not purposely designed but merely due to operation of law.
344. The. Australian Institute of Criminology, [Online]. Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/C/5/%7B0C5DFDDF-7A72-43F9-80A1-CA6D51B635B6%7Dtandi344.pdf, [Accessed 14 April 2011].
The major goal of the Australian prison at the beginning of the 20th century was the removal of lawbreakers from their activities in society (King, 2001). The Australian legal system relies on deterrence (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119), that is, a system that has two key assumptions: (i) specific punishments imposed on offenders will ‘deter’ or prevent them from committing further crimes (ii) the fear of punishment will prevent others from committing similar crimes (Carl et al, 2011, p. 119). However it is not always the case that deterrence is successful as people commit crime without concern for punishment, thinking that they will get away with the crime committed (Jacob, 2011). Economists argue that crime is a result of individuals making choices
Compare and contrast the arguments that have been advanced for and against the incorporation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Law in the criminal justice system.
When considering procedures for sentencing, it is important to know that the outset that sentencing is an area in which jurisdictions vary considerably, and to distinguish the differences in sentencing systems may have an important bearing on the applicable procedures.
In order for one to understand the criminal justice system, it is important to study both the criminal law of one’s own country as well as surrounding countries. By engaging in comparative criminal justice studies, one can expand this knowledge through the discovery of similarities and differences in the structure of criminal justice agencies of various nations or states. There are a multitude of factors which could contribute to the differences in each nation’s criminal justice system. By studying the ways in which other countries operate their criminal justice system, it may be possible to learn ways in which we could better our own system. In order to do this, we can study the ways in which various court systems operate around the world. In doing so, we will examine countries with both a different and similar judicial system to ours and discover the differences in how each operates. In furtherance of understanding the criminal justice system, we will
Prior to the implementation of sentencing guidelines, judges had total judicial discretion in determining sentence lengths leading to a wide fluctuation of sentences to offenders convicted of similar crimes due to the judge considering all information about the offender when sentencing.
"And Punishment: Crime." The Economist US 27 January 1996, v338 n7950. : 25. Online. Expanded Academic Index. 16 October 1999.
This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as they result in very few positive outcomes for the offender and society, increase recidivism rates, are very expensive, and in many cases are detrimental and unjust. Throughout this essay I will discuss two main cases that represent an unjust sentencing outcome due to the mandatory minimum sentencing laws. I will stress how it should be the discretion of the judge to individualize the sentences based on the offender’s mitigating factors, aggravating factors and background. Leroy Smickle is the first case discussed through the essay, which ended with the judge striking down the mandatory minimum sentences in Ontario due to the possession of a loaded gun. Robert Latimer was also a highly controversial Canadian case about a father who killed his mentally disabled daughter out of compassion to end her severe suffering. I will be using many academic articles throughout this essay to give empirical support to the overall argument.
During the sentence hearing of Liszczak and Phillips, Judge Croucher J took account of several mitigating factors. These included matters such as early plea of guilt, their relative youth, rehabilitation and the hardship of imprisonment they will endure. It becomes a matter of consideration of whether sentencing should take more account of mitigating factors, such as rehabilitation, which will assist in the wellbeing of the offender, or the police officer, who suffered trauma and other forms of mental and physical harm.
By viewing the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not account for the criminal offender’s motives for breaking the law. A judge may believe it is morally right to lessen the punishment of an offender, who had good intentions for committing the crime. An individual may be placed in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force them to commit a crime. Unfortunately for those individuals, truth in sentencing in the equal justice perspective does not allow for the judge’s discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people commit the same crime, yet one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions. A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
Punishment occurs to individuals who break the law. It is also used to maintain the level of crime and to protect community members in Australia. To determine that society is content with maintaining the crime rate, this essay will discuss punishment types given to offenders and how society justifies the use punishment. Additionally, providing a brief overview of the community correction and prions rates to show that communities prefer to incarcerate lawbreakers. Highlighting that crime rates are being maintained by looking at the personal crime rate for assault before concluding that Australian society feel safe enough to allow the criminal justice system to sustain the crime rate.
Tailby, Rebecca, ‘Organised Crime and People Smuggling/Trafficking to Australia’ (2001) 208 Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice
On the 10th and 14th of August, two sentencing hearings were observed. The two hearings were held at the Brisbane Supreme Court and lasted approximately three hours in total. This essay will describe the events that occurred during both trials, while critically discussing the aspects of the hearings and linking elements to the due process and the crime control model. Overall, both trials contained more aspects of the due process model than the crime control model. This can be seen in the manner the trials were conducted in, and the emphasis of upholding the rights of the accused.
Offenders are protected today by both the rule of law, ensuring that all offenders are treated equally, regardless of their age, sex or position in the community, and due process, which ensures that all offenders are given a fair trial with the opportunity to defend themselves and be heard (Williams, 2012). Beccaria’s emphasis on punishment being humane and non-violent has also carried through to modern day corrections. It is still the case today that offenders must only receive punishment that is proportionate to the crime they have committed and the punishment is determined by the law. The power of the judges and the magistrates to make decisions on punishment is guided by the legislation and they do not have the power to change the law (Ferrajoli,