Friday, 11 November 2016

Weekly Review Editor - Richard Thomas of Counsel A Weekly Bulletin listing Decisions of Superior Courts of Australia covering criminal

Search Engine

Click here to access our search engine facility to search legal issues, case names, courts and judges. Simply type in a keyword or phrase and all relevant cases that we have reported in Benchmark since its inception in June 2007 will be available with links to each case. Executive Summary

The Queen, on the application of Denby Collins v The Secretary of State for Justice (UK - QBD) - criminal law - householder’s defence - householder restrained intruder in headlock who sustained serious injuries - whether householder entitled to rely upon householder’s defence - whether defence limited to ‘reasonable force’ - whether defence incompatible with right to life protection under human rights convention - defence limited to ‘reasonable force’ (WCL)

Kelly v R (NSWCCA) - criminal law - sentence appeal - applicant with psychiatric issues and cognitive disorder pleaded guilty to 6 offences, including wounding causing grievous bodily harm (‘GBH’) - applicant represented himself on sentence and failed to adduce relevant, available psychiatric - on appeal, arguing miscarriage because of incompetent representation - appeal allowed, resentenced

R v Adams (No 5) (NSWSC) - criminal law - evidence - admissibility of representations contained in historical documents tendered on voir dire - 1983 - documents business records of police service - whether hearsay representations in documents admissible or excluded by s69(3) Evidence Act 1995 - one representation excluded and one admitted

DPP (NSW) v Mustow (NSWSC) - criminal law - judicial review - respondent pleaded guilty to occasioning actual bodily harm (‘OABH’), but magistrate dismissed the charge and found him guilty of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm - on appeal, conviction quashed and respondent re-charged with assault OABH - second magistrate dismissed charge - on Director’s appeal - both magistrates erred - matter remitted for determination of charge of

Page 1 assault OABH

The Queen v Edwards (VSC) - criminal law - bail - applicant with intellectual disability and history of anger management issues - failure to adequately present all evidence in support of application - consideration of relevance of delay in hearing matter - unacceptable risk - bail refused

R v Maddison (QCA) - criminal law - conviction appeal - appellant convicted of of child - appellant did not adduce evidence - whether verdict was unreasonable - principles considered and applied - verdict not unreasonable - appeal dismissed

Yaqubi v the State of Western Australia (No 2) (WASCA) - criminal law - sentence appeal - whether sentence should have been suspended - appellant pleaded guilty to unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm (‘GBH’) - sentenced to 16 months - whether sentence manifestly excessive - principles considered - comparable cases considered - sentence within range - no error - appeal dismissed

Wilson v The Queen (ACTCA) - criminal law - stay pending appeal - applicant found guilty of historical child sexual offences - application for a stay of the sentencing until after determination of applicant’s conviction appeal - principles considered - exceptional circumstance not demonstrated - application dismissed

Clark v Bluett (ACTSC) - criminal law - conviction appeal - presumption of regularity - evidentiary certificates under firearms legislation - appellant convicted on 4 counts of possession of firearms and ammunition - magistrates purported to amend the certificates to validate them - appeal allowed, convictions set aside

Brown v Guerin & Ors (NTSC) - criminal law - sentence appeal - domestic violence - appellant, who pleaded guilty to , was herself a victim of domestic violence (‘DV’) - whether history of DV constituted mitigating factor to reduce her moral culpability - sentence did not reflect appellant’s history of DV - error demonstrated - appeal allowed, resentenced

Summaries With Link (Five Minute Read)

The Queen, on the application of Denby Collins v The Secretary of State for Justice [2016] QB 862 Queen’s Bench Division Sir Brian Leveson P, Cranston J Criminal law - householder’s defence s76(5A) Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (UK) - Article 2 European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’), protection of right to life - Denby

Page 2 Collins had unlawfully entered B’s home and was restrained by B in a headlock for some 6 minutes - as a result of the headlock, Collins suffered serious personal injury (‘positional asphyxia’) and was not expected to recover - the Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute B, on the basis that while the force used might have been considerable, it was not ‘grossly disproportionate’ and was therefore ‘reasonable’ and that, accordingly, B could rely upon the householder’s defence so there were not reasonable prospects of a successful prosecution - Collins, though his litigation friend (his father) sought a declaration that s76(5A) was incompatible with Article 2 ECHR, which limits the use of force to ‘no more than is absolutely necessary’ - held: at , self-defence required two elements, one a subjective that the defendant genuinely believed that use of force was necessary and secondly, a partly objective and partly subjective element, being whether the nature and degree of force used was reasonable in the circumstance as the defendant believed them - authorities referred to (cf R v Oye [2014] 1 Cr App R 11) - s76(5A) qualifies the second element and automatically excludes a degree of force that is grossly disproportionate from being reasonable in householder cases - where the degree of force is not grossly disproportionate, s76(5A) does not prevent the degree of force from being reasonable - the test used in the section does not depend upon whether the force used was proportionate, disproportionate or grossly disproportionate - on the basis that the householder genuinely believed that it was necessary to use force, s76(5A), read together with the common law on self-defence, requires two separate, disjunctive questions to be put to a in a householder case (1) was the degree of force used grossly disproportionate in the circumstances the householder believed existed? If ‘yes’, the defence does not apply, but if ‘no’, then (2) was the degree of force used nevertheless reasonable in the circumstances the householder believed existed? If ‘yes’, then the defence can be relied upon, but not if the force was unreasonable - in deciding whether the degree of force was reasonable it is necessary to take into account the fact that the person acting in self- defence may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any action - evidence of a person having only done what he or she honestly and instinctively thought necessary for their defence, constitutes potent evidence that the force was reasonable - in considering Article 2, it has been consistently held that the ‘reasonableness limb of self-defence’ is compatible with the Article 2 requirement of ‘absolute ’ - accordingly, there is no incompatibility between the householder’s defence and Article 2 - the CPS applied the wrong test in determining not to prosecute B - application dismissed [Editor’s note: cf s9, Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic); s9, Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT); see ss418, 419, 420, 421 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); ss 322I, 322K, 322N, 322R Crimes Act 1958 (Vic); ss25, 271,272, 277, 278 Criminal Code 1899 (Q); ss15, 15A, 15B, 15C Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA); ss244, 248 Criminal Code 1923 (WA); ss8,40-46 Criminal Code Act 1924 (Tas); ss41, 42 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT); ss27, 29 Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT)]. Denby Collins

Kelly v R [2016] NSWCCA 246 Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales

Page 3 Hoeben CJ at CL, Rothman & R A Hulme JJ Criminal law - sentence appeal - applicant with psychiatric issues and cognitive disorder pleaded guilty to 6 counts: 2 counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (s33(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)); 3 counts of assault Occasionally Actual Bodily Harm (‘OABH’) (s59(1) Crimes Act 1900); one count destroy or damage property (s195(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900) - during the sentence hearing the judge repeatedly advised the applicant that he should obtain legal representation and that psychiatric reports would assist him - the respondent refused to accept this advice and was sentenced to an aggregate sentence of 12 years, NPP 9 years - he appealed on the primary ground that a occurred due to his incompetent presentation of his subjective case and sought to adduce further evidence - held: the evidence sought to be adduced on appeal related to the applicant’s psychiatric condition which existed at the time of sentencing - this evidence could have been available and adduced at sentence, but that did not happen - ordinarily parties are bound by the manner in which their cases are presented at first instance, however there are exceptions and the rule is not absolute 209 A Crim R 509, [104]-[105]) - here, the situation was complicated by the fact that the sentencing judge directly raised the question of both the availability and desirability of material of the kind now sought to be relied upon, being adduced before him - however, that emphasised the importance of the material - ultimately, whether to permit the material to be adduced rested on the principle that justice must be the determining criterion in the exercise of the discretion - further, the evidence showed that the applicant suffered a traumatic brain injury following an intra-cerebral bleed and surgery to drain a subdural haemorrhage and that his decision to continue with the sentencing despite the judge urging him to adopt a different course, becomes a factor in the determination of whether the additional evidence should be permitted to be adduced - the evidence should be admitted - the sentencing judge was denied, by the applicant’s irrationality and incompetence, relevant material and as a result the sentencing process miscarried - on re-sentencing, the applicant’s mental health meant that general deterrence was of less significance, but applying a discount and finding special circumstance, a head sentence of 11 years 3 months, NPP 7 years, was imposed. Kelly

R v Adams [2016] NSWSC 1563 Supreme Court of New South Wales Button J Criminal law - evidence - admissibility of representations contained in documents tendered on voir dire - accused standing trial for a murder alleged to have been committed in 1983, challenged the admissibility of representations contained in two documents - the documents had been relied upon by the Crown in an application by it to adduce tendency evidence from 3 women - one of the women, who had been assaulted in 1978, had memorised the licence plate of the car driver by her attacker as DMB 055 or DMB 065 and the documents purported to link the accused to cars with the licence plate DMB 055 - the Crown argued that the representation that the accused had used a vehicle at the relevant time with the licence plate BMB 055 was a business record and admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay (s69 Evidence Act

Page 4 1995) - held: the first document, headed ‘NSW Police Department Further Crime Information Report’, was created during a police investigation of offences allegedly committed by the accused and accordingly fell within s69(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 - s69(3) excludes representations, inter alia, prepared or obtained for the purpose of conducting or in contemplation of proceedings or in connection with an investigation - it is important to remember that what may be tendered as evidence which evades the hearsay rule under s69 is not documents but representations in documents - the inclusive provisions of subsections (1) & (2) are of wide import and are to be construed accordingly (Schipp v Cameron (No 3); ASIC v Whitlam) - the exclusionary provisions of s69 ought to be similarly construed so that the expressions in subsections 3(a) & (b) ‘in contemplation of’ and ‘in connection with’ should be regarded as words of wide meaning (R v Rondo [2001] NSWCCA 540) - what is referred to in subsections 3(a) and (b) is simply a proceeding or an investigation and there is no basis for construing the subsections as limited to representations made in relation to the proceedings they are being tendered in (see Australian Medic-Care Company Ltd v Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd (2008) 170 FCR 9; BestCare Foods Ltd v Origin Energy Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1304; Thaler v Amzalak (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1315) - the rationale of exclusion is not based upon the mere fact of whether the representation contained in the document came into existence in connection with this litigation or that investigation; rather, it is founded upon the detrimental effect on reliability that any litigation or any investigation could have upon the representation - the tendered representation in document 1 is excluded by the operation of s69(3) - the second document was a ‘business record’ - the section does not require the document to emanate for a particular business - it was created by the NSW Police Service for its own purposes - considering s69(2) & (5), on the balance of probabilities it was made on the basis of information directly supplied by a person who might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact that the accused was the owner of a motor vehicle with asserted attribute - accepting that the Crown bore that onus of proving the tendered representation contained in the document did not fall within the exception in s69(3), it was not captured by the subsection as it could not be linked to any particular investigation or litigation - it is not the document that must be connected with an investigation or proceedings, but the preparing or obtaining/making of the representation that must possess that characteristic - considering s137 Evidence Act 1995, the representation contained in the second representation was admissible [Editor’s note: see also R v Adams [2015] NSWSC 1960; R v Adams (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1359]. Adams

DPP (NSW) v Mustow [2016] NSWSC 1538 Supreme Court of New South Wales R A Hulme J Criminal law - judicial review s69 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) - respondent pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm (‘OABH’), but magistrate dismissed the charge and found him guilty of the more serious offence of recklessly inflicting grievous bodily harm - the respondent appealed his conviction on the ground that the injuries inflicted did not amount to

Page 5 grievous bodily harm - accepting that ground, his conviction was quashed - the police then re- charged the respondent with assault OABH and a different magistrate held that there was no jurisdiction to deal with that charge as it had already been dismissed - the Director sought to appeal that determination in order to reactivate the charge of assault OABH - held: identifying the relevant statutory provisions (Chapter 4, ss170-232 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) (‘CPA’)) - the usual practice where a hearing proceeds for a more serious charge and the prosecution succeeds in proving its case, is that the prosecutor withdraws any lesser (back-up) charge on the basis that it has no further utility - here, the first magistrate must have assumed that that practice would have been adopted and he accordingly dismissed the charge of assault OABH pursuant to s208 CPA - if the dismissal was pursuant to s202 CPA, then the first magistrate lacked jurisdiction as there was no hearing of the matter and the respondent had pleaded guilty - to have dismissed the matter pursuant to s202 would have constituted jurisdictional error and both magistrates would have erred - there was, however, no bar to a further prosecution of the assault OABH charge, autrefois acquit not being strictly available in summary proceedings and no hearing on the merits occurred - accordingly, there was error on behalf of either or both of the magistrates - relief granted, charge remitted [Editor’s note: see State Pollution Control Commission v Tallow Products Pty Ltd 29 NSWLR 517, 530, considering the power of a magistrate to give effect to the common law rule against double jeopardy where a fresh charge is brought after dismissal of summary proceedings]. Mustow

The Queen v Edwards [2016] VSC 672 Supreme Court of Victoria Elliott J Criminal law - bail - applicant charged with offences including threats to kill and inflict serious injury, and criminal damage - complainant carrying applicant’s child but parties no longer together - applicant assaulted while on remand - applicant with prior convictions and with an intellectual disability - held: application for bail pursuant to s4 Bail Act 1977 (Vic) - court required to grant bail unless satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk ) that the accused would, if released on bail, fail to surrender himself, commit an offence, endanger the safety of others or interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice - affidavits by applicant’s solicitor and mother, together with a report from a retired psychologist, relied upon - applicant also relied upon an undated and unsigned letter from an employer - informant filed an affidavit in response and gave evidence - held: the court was informed that the expectation was that the current charges would be dealt with summarily by December 2016 - however, having regard to his criminal record, his history of being unable to cope and his violent behaviour, his apparent inability to understand the consequence of his behaviour and to control his anger and to obey the law, there was an unacceptable bail risk - application refused, but noted that if his matters are not resolved by December 2016 the matter of bail could be revisited. Edwards

R v Maddison [2016] QCA 279

Page 6 Court of Appeal of Queensland Gotterson, Morrison & Philippides JJA Criminal law - conviction appeal - appellant charged on indictment with 4 sexual offences, including rape, against a child - he was convicted of one offence only and then re-tried on the count of rape and convicted - on the re-trial, 7 witnesses gave evidence, of which three were children (including the complainant) - the evidence of the children was pre-recorded by police two days after the alleged events - the appellant elected to neither give, nor call evidence - on appeal, appellant argued that the conviction was unreasonable - held: the ground of appeal against conviction relied upon is to be regarded as a contention pursuant to s 668E(1) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) that the jury’s verdict was ‘unreasonable, or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence’ (R v RAU [2015] QCA 217, [5]-[6]) - the Court must therefore review the appeal record and determine whether it was open, upon the whole of the evidence, for the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt (see MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; R v SCH [2015] QCA 38; M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; The Queen v Baden-Clay 90 ALJR 1013) - on the whole of the evidence it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt as to the appellant’s guilt - the jury’s verdict cannot be said to have been unreasonable - the appellant also argued that a miscarriage of justice had occurred because of the failure to discharge the jury after evidence was adduced that was inadmissible and prejudicial - no error demonstrated - appeal dismissed. Maddison

Yaqubi v The State of Western Australia (No 2) [2016] WASCA 187 Court of Appeal of Western Australia Buss P, Mazza & Mitchell JJA Criminal law - sentence appeal - appellant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm under s297(1) Criminal Code 1923 (WA) - appellant, who was 18 years old, committed an unprovoked attack on the victim causing him significant injury - appellant was in employment, had the support of his family and was planning to be married - appellant had a conviction for assault and failed to demonstrate insight into his offending, rather blaming the victim and minimising the seriousness of his behaviour, although he did write a letter of apology to the victim eventually - he demonstrated immaturity, impulsivity and lack of consequential thinking - the sentencing judge found that he had been of good character and that he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, allowing a discount of 25% (s9AA Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)) - appellant was sentenced to 16 months, with parole eligibility - on appeal, the appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive as it should have been wholly suspended - held: an appeal ground alleging that the sentence is manifestly excessive asserts the existence of implied error and requires the court to examine the sentence from the perspective of the maximum sentence prescribed , the standards of sentencing customarily observed, the objective seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender - the discretion of the sentencing judge is of fundamental importance and this court may not substitute its opinion for that of the sentencing judge (Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665, [15]) - in WA the statutory sentencing principles are set out in Part 2 of the Sentencing Act

Page 7 1995 (WA) - the maximum penalty for a s297(1) offence is 10 years - this Court has examined numerous cases of offending against s297(1) (see Trompler v The State of Western Australia [2008] WASCA 265; Mercanti v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 109; The State of Western Australia v Taylor (2012) 226 A Crim R 308; Peake v The State of Western Australia [2015] WASCA 239; Winmar v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 62) - the guidance afforded by comparable cases is flexible rather than rigid - a range of sentences customarily imposed is of significance for ensuring broad consistency in sentencing in broadly comparable cases, but does not fix the range of the sentencing discretion in a particular case - a sentencing judge must be positively satisfied that suspended and conditionally suspended imprisonment are not an appropriate sentencing option before imposing a sentence of immediate imprisonment (HNA v The State of Western Australia [2016] WASCA 165, [27]-[30]) - the determination of what is ‘not appropriate’ must be reached by applying the relevant sentencing principles and considerations of all the circumstances of the offence and the offender - the discretion to suspend or conditionally suspend a term of imprisonment is not confined by considerations relating to rehabilitation 202 CLR 321, [18], [26], [84], [86] - the objective features of the offence may outweigh the personal considerations of rehabilitation - here the factors militating against suspending the term of imprisonment were the seriousness of the offending, the importance of personal and general deterrence and the lack of genuine remorse - the sentence was within range - appeal dismissed. Yaqubi

Wilson v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 56 Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory Refshauge J Criminal law - stay pending appeal - applicant found guilty of 9 historical sexual offences against children and pleaded guilty to 3 other similar offences - trial judge granted the applicant bail to ‘put his affairs in order’ prior to sentencing - applicant, having lodged an appeal against conviction, sought a stay of the sentencing and continuation of bail - applicant 75 years old and in poor health - held: Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) permit an appeal against conviction by an accused person prior to sentence being imposed (R v Meyboom (2012) 256 FLR 450, 454) - ordinarily a stay of sentence should not be ordered merely because an appeal against conviction has been commenced (Nona v The Queen (No 3) [2012] ACTCA 60; R v De Marchi [1983] 1 VR 619) - there are ‘powerful reasons of policy’ why the ordinary processes of the criminal law, where sentence ordinarily follows from a finding of guilt, ought not to be fragmented (R v WR [2009] ACTSC 93) - however, there may be unusual circumstances where it is appropriate to proceed with a conviction appeal prior to sentence in order to ensure that ‘justice be done’ (Masoud v The Queen [2000] FCA 435, [11], R v De Marchi, supra, at 622, ASIC v Edwards [2005] NSWSC 1278, [16]) - the principles relating to the grant of bail following such a stay are set out in Sherd v The Queen 5 ACTLR 290 - after consideration of the evidence and argument: neither the applicant’s health nor the arguable prospects of success on appeal separately, or together, constituted exceptional circumstances required to justify delaying the applicant’s sentencing - application dismissed.

Page 8 Wilson

Clark v Bluett [2016] ACTSC 312 Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory Elkaim J Criminal law - conviction appeal - presumption of regularity - evidentiary certificates under firearms legislation - appellant convicted on 4 counts of possessing firearms and ammunition - on appeal from Magistrate’s Court, the main issue was whether the prosecution could rely upon 3 evidentiary certificates purportedly issued pursuant to s269(1)(q) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) - at first instance, one issue was whether the certificates had been validly signed and the prosecution sought to rely upon the presumption of regularity - additionally, the magistrate hearing the matter had purported to amend the certificates in order to validate them - held: the Crown conceded that the certificates had not been validly issued, but relied upon the presumption of regularity (see Cassell v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 189; Dixon v LeKich (2010) 56 MVR 70; Mowdy v State of Western Australia (2007) 176 A Crim R 85) - the presumption of regularity can be applied in criminal proceedings - the magistrate however did not rely upon the presumption in reaching her conclusion, but upon a finding that the evidence established a valid delegation chain - this constituted error as it did not - the certificates further stated that there were issued pursuant to a non-existent section of the legislation and the magistrate’s purported amendment of the certificates to reflect the correct [sic] statutory provision constituted error - convictions set aside. Clark

Brown v Guerin & Ors [2016] NTSC 53 Supreme Court of the Northern Territory Blokland J Criminal law - sentence appeal - appellant, who had 6 children, had been subjected to a long history of significant domestic violence committed against her by her partner - the violence occurred often within the context of excessive alcohol consumption - the appellant’s prior criminal history was limited to traffic and breach of bail offences - appellant’s partner had engaged in provocative and assaultive conduct immediately prior to the assaults committed on him by the appellant - appellant pleaded guilty to 4 counts of recklessly endangering serious harm, aggravated assault, breach of bail and contravention of a Domestic Violence Order (DVO) - sentenced to 5 years, suspended after 12 months, with orders of concurrency and cumulation - s121(6)(b) & s121(7) Domestic and Family Violence Act 2001 (NT) provides that any sentence of imprisonment imposed for breach of a DVO must be cumulative on any other term of imprisonment - here, 6 months imprisonment was imposed for the DVO breach concurrent with the imprisonment imposed for the aggravated assault, but cumulative on the term imposed for the recklessly endanger offence - on appeal, argued the sentence was manifestly excessive and error in failing to give mitigating factors sufficient weight - held: the primary ground of appeal contends the sentence is manifestly excessive - the error alleged of failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors is to be viewed as particulars of the ground asserting

Page 9 manifest excess (Noakes v The Queen [2015] NTCCA 7, [15]; Blitner v Ganley [2015] NTSC 84, [9]) - applying DPP v Terrick; DPP v Marks; DPP v Stewart (2009) 24 VR 457, 459, 460 - general principles concerning appeals against sentence considered and authorities referred to (see Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; R v ADJ (2005) 153 A Crim R 324; Whithurst v The Queen [2011] NTCCA 11) - here, although the offences were serious, there were powerful mitigating factors - the appellant, like other vulnerable women, had been subjected to the type of violence perpetrated against women by husbands and partners in circumstance where they most likely lacked access to support mechanisms that can provide protective mechanisms and enable them to leave the abusive relationship - the sentencing remarks did not reflect that significant consideration was given, in setting the head sentences and the overall term, to the long history of domestic violence committed against the appellant - given the background of violence perpetrated upon her, the by the victim was significant, reducing her moral culpability - the social deterioration that victims of family violence suffered has been acknowledged in many sentencing decisions 20527791 [23/10/2006]) summarised in Orsto v Grother [2015] NTSC 18) - here, provocation by the victim played a significant part in the commission of the substantive offences and the sentencing remarks that she acted in retaliation did not accord with the actual circumstances - the head sentences and overall structure of the sentences should have reflected this - there should have been adjustment to permit partial concurrency between the substantive offences - in assessing overall culpability the commonality in the underlying facts and circumstances of the offences should be the focus - manifest excess demonstrated - appeal allowed, sentences quashed and resentenced to total term of 3 years, suspended after 12 months. Brown

Page 10 Sonnet 98: From you have I been absent in the spring

By William Shakespeare

From you have I been absent in the spring, When proud-pied April, dressed in all his trim, Hath put a spirit of youth in everything, That heavy Saturn laughed and leaped with him. Yet nor the lays of birds, nor the sweet smell Of different flowers in odour and in hue, Could make me any summer’s story tell, Or from their proud lap pluck them where they grew: Nor did I wonder at the lily’s white, Nor praise the deep vermilion in the rose; They were but sweet, but figures of delight Drawn after you, – you pattern of all those. Yet seem’d it winter still, and, you away, As with your shadow I with these did play.?

Click Here to access our Benchmark Search Engine

Page 11

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)