R v De Simoni

Last updated

R v De Simoni
Coat of Arms of Australia.svg
Court High Court of Australia
Full case nameTHE QUEEN v. DE SIMONI
Decided16 June 1981
Citation(s) [1981] HCA 31, 147 CLR 383
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingGibbs C.J., Mason, Murphy, Wilson and Brennan JJ
Case opinions
appeal allowed

The trial judge did not take into account an irrelevant consideration
per Gibs CJ
concurring
Mason J
Murphy J

Wilson J

Contents


Brennan J

R v De Simoni is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

The case is notable for the 'De Simoni principle', a doctrine that applies to criminal sentencing law. The rule 'bars sentencing judges from relying on facts that would amount to a more serious crime than the one the offender had been convicted of'. [1] This rule prevents, for example, a judge from relying on aggravating facts in sentencing a manslaughter conviction; if those facts would imply the offender had actually committed a more serious offence. [Note 1]

According to LawCite, it is the 128th most cited case of the High Court. [2] [3]

Facts

Pictured: the Western Australian coat of arms, used in its courts. The De Simoni case was an appeal of sentence under the WA Criminal Code Coat of arms of Western Australia.svg
Pictured: the Western Australian coat of arms, used in its courts. The De Simoni case was an appeal of sentence under the WA Criminal Code

Luciano De Simoni pleaded guilty before a judge in the District Court of Western Australia to an indictment which alleged he 'stole from one Florence Kathleen Scott with actual violence $180 in money ... '. [4]

A conviction was entered under the WA Criminal Code for the offence of robbery. [Note 2] The Crown then stated the material facts to the court. They were that the victim was a woman of 78 years; at the time of the robbery the respondent struck her with a heavy blow, inflicting a 10 cm wound on the back of her head which needed eight stitches. De Simoni's counsel did not dispute this account. The trial judge then sentenced him to seven years, with a non-parole period of four years. [4] [Note 3]

The trial judge remarked: [4]

'In my view this is a shocking crime ... what you had done - struck from behind on the head with a piece of wood a 78-year-old woman. In my view this crime deserves punishment and substantial punishment'

De Simoni appealed, claiming that the trial judge had exceeded his available discretion. The Court of appeal allowed his appeal, but on different grounds; the court held that the facts that De Simoni had wounded his victim, was something the trial judge had taken into account; and that this circumstance of aggravation was prohibited by s582 of the WA Criminal Code. [Note 4]

The state of Western Australia then appealed to the High Court.

Judgement

The High Court overturned the court of appeal. It found that violence was already a factor within the sentencing provisions for robbery under the code; and that the trial judge had only taken into account the fact violence had been committed. They overturned a finding that the trial judge had taken into account the fact of the victim being wounded. However, the affirmed that if the trial judge had done so; it would have been an inappropriate consideration, as wounding would have implied a more serious offence than violent robbery. [5]

The 'crucial question', according to the court, was whether: [6]

'a judge can be said to rely upon a circumstance of aggravation within the meaning of s. 582, when he takes that circumstance into consideration in imposing a sentence, and by reason of it inflicts a penalty more severe than he would otherwise have imposed.'

The High Court then found for Western Australia, and remitted the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal to give consideration to grounds it had previously excluded under s582. [7]

Significance

De Simoni is an important case in Australian sentencing law, however it has some nuances that can occasionally make it difficult to understand and apply by lower court judges. [1] Some questions associated with the doctrine were recently considered by the High Court in Nguyen v R and Betts v R. [8]

While the decision was based on the WA Criminal Code, the rule in De Simoni still applies in Australia's common law criminal jurisdictions. Nyugen v R for example, was an appeal of sentence for a conviction recorded in NSW. [9]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ e.g. taking into account an intention to kill, would ordinarily be disallowed in a judge's reasons to aggravate a sentence for a conviction under manslaughter. In this example it would be because that would imply the person had committed murder, a more serious crime.
  2. ↑ The offence of robbery was defined by s. 391 of the Criminal Code (W.A.) in the following terms: "Any person who steals anything, and, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of stealing it, uses or threatens to use actual violence to any person or property in order to obtain the thing stolen or to prevent or overcome resistance to its being stolen, is said to be guilty of robbery."
  3. ↑ Sentencing for robbery was set out within the Criminal Code in the following terms: "Any person who commits the crime of robbery is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for fourteen years. If the offender is armed with any dangerous or offensive weapon or instrument, ... , or if, at or immediately before or immediately after the time of the robbery, he wounds or uses any other personal violence to any person, he is liable to imprisonment with hard labour for life, with or without whipping."
  4. ↑ Section 582 of the Criminal Code, which deals with the form of indictments, contained the following provision: "If any circumstance of aggravation is intended to be relied upon, it must be charged in the indictment"

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law. In civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. Variation in common law countries is the peremptory plea, which may take the specific forms of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict. These doctrines appear to have originated in ancient Roman law, in the broader principle non bis in idem.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summary offence</span> Crime tried without a jury

A summary offence or petty offence is a violation in some common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded against summarily, without the right to a jury trial and/or indictment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jury</span> Group of people to render a verdict in a court

A jury is a sworn body of people (jurors) convened to hear evidence and render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment.

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted criminals are to remain in prison for the rest of their lives or indefinitely until pardoned, paroled, or commuted to a fixed term. Crimes that warrant life imprisonment are usually violent and/or dangerous. Examples of crimes that result in life sentences are murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, drug trafficking, drug possession, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated criminal damage, arson, kidnapping, burglary, and robbery, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, severe cases of child pornography, or any three felonies in case of three-strikes law.

Bail is a set of pre-trial restrictions that are imposed on a suspect to ensure that they will not hamper the judicial process. Bail is the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required. In some countries, especially the United States, bail usually implies a bail bond, a deposit of money or some form of property to the court by the suspect in return for the release from pre-trial detention. If the suspect does not return to court, the bail is forfeited and the suspect may be charged with the crime of failure to appear. If the suspect returns to make all their required appearances, bail is returned after the trial is concluded.

In law, provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control. This makes them less morally culpable than if the act was premeditated (pre-planned) and done out of pure malice. It "affects the quality of the actor's state of mind as an indicator of moral blameworthiness."

Attempted murder is a crime of attempt in various jurisdictions.

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

<i>R v Vaillancourt</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636, is a landmark case from the Supreme Court of Canada on the constitutionality of the Criminal Code concept of "constructive murder". The Court raised the possibility that crimes with significant "stigma" attached, such as murder, require proof of the mens rea element of subjective foresight of death, but declined to decide on that basis. Instead, they concluded that all crimes require proof of at least objective fault, that the particular provision at issue here did not meet that requirement, and therefore that provision of the Criminal Code for constructive murder was unconstitutional.

<i>Dietrich v The Queen</i> 1992 Australian High Court legal aid case

Dietrich v The Queen is a 1992 High Court of Australia constitutional case which established a person accused of serious criminal charges must be granted an adjournment until appropriate legal representation is provided if they are unrepresented through no fault of their own and proceeding would result in the trial being unfair.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of Canada</span>

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

Causing death by dangerous driving is a statutory offence in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as Hong Kong. It is an aggravated form of dangerous driving. In the UK, it was created by section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, and in Hong Kong it was created by section 36 of the Road Traffic Ordinance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal Justice Act 2003</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

<i>Crimes Act 1900</i> Legislation of NSW, Australia that establishes a majority of criminal offences

The Crimes Act1900 (NSW) is an Act of the Parliament of New South Wales that defines an extensive list of offences and sets out punishments for the majority of criminal offences in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. The Act, alongside the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), form the almost complete basis of criminal law for the State. It is the primary criminal law statute of NSW, and which formed the basis for the Australian Capital Territory's Crimes Act1900 (ACT).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in Canada</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in Canada

Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.

In Australia, murder is a criminal offence where a person, by a voluntary act or omission, causes the death of another person with either intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, or with reckless indifference to human life. It may also arise in circumstances where the accused was committing, or assisting in the commission, of a different serious crime that results in a person's death. It is usually punished by life imprisonment.

John Harris Byrne is a retired Australian jurist who previously served as Senior Judge Administrator of the Supreme Court of Queensland. Having been a judge of that court since 1989, he was one of the court's most experienced judges. He was also Chair of the National Judicial College of Australia, a body which provides programs and professional development resources to judicial officers in Australia. He is now a private Commercial Arbitrator.

<i>Dinsdale v R</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Dinsdale v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

References

  1. 1 2 "The High Court and the facts of sentencing: Nguyen v R and Betts v R | Opinions on High" . Retrieved 3 November 2020.
  2. ↑ Note: LawCite citation statistics track the written judgements of courts, journal articles, and tribunals. (both in Australia and overseas) https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=&party1=&party2=&court=High%2BCourt%2Bof%2BAustralia&juris=&article=&author=&year1=&year2=&synonyms=on&filter=on&cases-cited=&legis-cited=&section=&large-search-ok=1&sort-order=cited
  3. ↑ Note: list is as of September 2020
  4. 1 2 3 147 CLR 383 at para 2
  5. ↑ 147 CLR 383 at para 19
  6. ↑ 147 CLR 383 at para 7
  7. ↑ 147 CLR 383 at para 20
  8. ↑ Hulmes, Louise (2016). "The De Simoni principle and concurrent sentences". Bar News: The Journal of the New South Wales Bar Association.
  9. ↑ Clark, Martin. "Nguyen v The Queen | Opinions on High" . Retrieved 3 November 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.