Arnold v Regina - [2007] NSWCCA 188

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Arnold v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 188

HEARING DATE(S): 8 May 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Campbell JA at 1; Hidden J at 2; Smart AJ at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal from the sentences imposed refused

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Three offences of break and enter a building and commit a serious indictable offence - no arguable error demonstrated in sentencing - responsibility for health care - no expert evidence health care provided inadequate

LEGISLATION CITED: Sentencing (Criminal Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Nil

PARTIES: Robyn Gay Arnold v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/554

COUNSEL: (A) In Person
(C) N Norman

SOLICITORS: (A) Unrepresented
(C) S Kavanagh

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/1148 & 05/11/0161

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 24/02/06

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2007/554

CAMPBELL JA
HIDDEN J
SMART AJ
Friday, 29 June 2007

Robyn Gay Arnold v REGINA

Judgment

1 CAMPBELL JA: I agree with Smart AJ

2 HIDDEN J: I agree with Smart AJ

3 SMART AJ: Robyn Gay Arnold, the applicant, seeks leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment imposed for three offences of break and enter a building and commit a serious indictable offence. The maximum penalty for such an offence is 14 years imprisonment. On the first of the three offences three other offences are to be taken into account, namely, goods in custody, (having possession of a credit card in the name of another In June 2004), using a false instrument (which involved altering a money order and cashing it in October 2003) and obtaining money by deception in October 2003.

4 The applicant received an overall sentence of five years consisting of three years non-parole period with an additional term (or balance of term) of two years. On the first count of break, enter etc, taking into account the offences on Form 1 the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of two years commencing on 1 September 2005 and expiring on 31 August 2007 and a balance of the term of one year expiring on 31 August 2008. On the second count of break, enter etc the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of two years to commence on 1 September 2005 and to expire on 31 August 2007. On the third count of break, enter etc the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of one year commencing on 1 September 2007 and expiring on 31 August 2008 being the earliest date on which she was eligible for parole, and a balance of term of two years expiring on 31 August 2010.

5 The first offence of break, enter etc was committed on 5 June 2004 when the applicant, after knocking on the front door of a unit in Bondi entered the unit. The door was locked. The occupant in the unit…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Arnold v Regina

Details

AGLC: Arnold v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 188
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 188
Decision Date: 29 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the defendant was convicted of three offences related to breaking and entering buildings and committing serious indictable offences. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for these crimes. The defendant claimed that the sentence was too harsh, arguing that his health care needs were not properly addressed during his incarceration. The defendant also argued that the health care provided was inadequate.

The primary legal issues were whether the sentencing was too severe and if the health care provided to the defendant was inadequate. The court considered the severity of the offences and the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community. The court also examined the adequacy of the health care provided to the defendant and whether there was any arguable error in the sentencing decision.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, given the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court noted that the defendant had a history of similar offending behaviour and had not shown any genuine remorse. The court also held that the defendant had not demonstrated any arguable error in the sentencing decision or that the health care provided was inadequate. The court found that there was no expert evidence presented to support the defendant's claim that the health care provided was inadequate.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the defendant's health care needs and that there was no arguable error in the sentencing decision. The court further held that the defendant had not provided any evidence to support his claim that the health care provided was inadequate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders