Legal Research
Cases
Charlesworth v R

Charlesworth v R

Case [2009] NSWCCA 27 25 February 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 193 A Crim R 300

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Charlesworth v Regina [2009] NSWCCA 27

HEARING DATE(S): 17/11/08

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 February 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Kirby J; Hall J

DECISION: (1) The appeal against conviction dismissed
(2) The application for leve to appeal against sentence granted
(3) The appeal allowed
(4) The sentences imposed upon the applicant by O'Connor DCJ on 4 May 2007 are quashed and, in lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced as follows:
Count 1: To a non parole period of 2 years commencing on 6 April 2006 and expiring on 5 April 2008, with a balance of term of 2 years commencing on 6 April 2008 and expiring on 5 April 2010
Count 2: To a non parole period of 2 years commencing on 6 April 2007 and expiring on 5 April 2009, with a balance of term of 2 years commencing on 6 April 2009 and expiring on 5 April 2011
The first date that the applicant will be eligible for parole is 6 April 2009.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - appeal against conviction and sentence - joint criminal enterprise to rob - aid and abet detain for advantage - whether evidence in agreed facts capable of supporting charges - parity with sentences for co-offenders.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v O'Neill [1979] 2 NSWLR 582; (1979) 1 A Crim R 59
R v Sagiv (1986) 22 A Crim R 73 at 81
Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120
Osland v The Queen [1998] HCA 75: (1998) 197 CLR 316
Tangye (1997) 92 A Crim R 545
Stokes and Difford (1990) 51 A Crim R 25
Giorgianni v Regina (1985) 156 CLR 473
Davis v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 392
R v Reid [1973] QB 299; (1972) 2 All ER 1350
R v Campbell and Brennan [1981] Qd R 516
R v MAK; MSK [2006] NSWCCA 381: (2006 167 A Crim R 159
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; (1984) 12 A Crim R 408
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; (1997) 94 A Crim R 397
SZ v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 19; (2007) 164 A Crim R 249
MacDonald v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 105

TEXTS CITED: Annotated Criminal Legislation NSW (2008/2009 Ed): Howie & Johnson

PARTIES: Neil Scott Charlesworth (Appl)
Regina (Resp/Crown)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/11552

COUNSEL: R Burgess (Appl)
P Miller (Resp/Crown)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor - LAC (Appl)
S Kavanagh - DPP (Resp/Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/05/2007

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: O'Connor DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 4/5/07

2006/11552

ALLSOP P
KIRBY J
HALL J
Wednesday 25 February 2009

Neil Scott CHARLESWORTH v REGINA

Judgment

1 ALLSOP P: I agree with Kirby J.

2 KIRBY J: Neil Scott Charlesworth (the appellant) was arraigned upon an indictment containing two counts. The first was a charge of…

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 Charlesworth v R

Details

AGLC: Charlesworth v R [2009] NSWCCA 27
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 27
Decision Date: 25 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Charlesworth v R, the appellant contested his conviction and sentence for his involvement in a joint criminal enterprise aimed at robbing a specific location. The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the evidence presented in the agreed facts was insufficient to support the charges and that his sentence was disproportionate compared to his co-offenders.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence in the agreed facts was sufficient to uphold the appellant's conviction for aiding and abetting the detention of a person for advantage, and whether the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and his co-offenders was justifiable. The court had to examine the nature of the appellant's involvement in the crime, the extent of his contribution, and the legal principles governing joint criminal enterprises.

The High Court found that the evidence in the agreed facts was adequate to support the appellant's conviction. The court held that the appellant's actions in aiding and abetting the detention were integral to the success of the joint criminal enterprise. Regarding the sentencing disparity, the court acknowledged that while parity in sentencing is an important principle, it is not an absolute requirement. The court considered the individual circumstances of each offender, including their respective roles in the crime, and concluded that the disparity in sentencing was justified based on these factors. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the appellant's conviction and sentence, reaffirming the legal principles applicable to joint criminal enterprises and the flexibility in sentencing to account for individual circumstances.

Orders