Crago v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 68

CITATION: Crago v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 68

HEARING DATE(S): 19/04/06

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1, 67; James J at 2; Hoeben J at 68

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 04/19/2006

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed. Applicant re-sentenced

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – guilty plea – firing a firearm in a manner likely to endanger the safety of a specified person – using a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence – maliciously damaging a motor vehicle – possessing a firearm without being authorised to do so – air rifle – whether the sentencing judge failed to give effect to the finding of special circumstances – whether sentencing judge failed to take into account totality – whether sentence manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Firearms Act

CASES CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Firearms Act

PARTIES: Christopher Robert CRAGO v REGINA

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/21

COUNSEL: M Johnston - Applicant
Dr P Power SC - Crown

SOLICITORS: Steve O'Connor - Applicant
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) - Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/21/3158; 04/21/0175

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Marien DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 03/04/2005

2006/21

HODGSON JA
JAMES J
HOEBEN J

WEDNESDAY 19 APRIL 2006

Christopher Robert CRAGO v REGINA

JUDGMENT

1 HODGSON JA: I will ask James J to give the first judgment.

2 JAMES J: Christopher Robert Crago applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him in the District Court by his Honour Judge Marien SC on 4 March 2005.

3 The applicant had pleaded guilty to 12 charges, being:- a charge of firing a firearm in a manner likely to endanger the safety of a specified person (count 1 in the indictment presented against the applicant); nine charges of using an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence, namely malicious wounding, while in the company of another person (counts 2-10 in the indictment); a charge of maliciously damaging a motor vehicle (count 11 in the indictment); and a charge of possessing a firearm, namely an air rifle, without being authorised to do so (count 12 in the indictment).

4 The first count in the indictment was a charge under s 93G of the Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years.

5 Counts 2-10 in the indictment were charges under s 33B(2) of the Crimes Act of using an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence whilst in the company of another person, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 15 years.

6 Count 11 in the indictment was a charge under s 195(a) of the Crimes Act, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for five years.

7 Count 12 in the indictment was stated to be a charge under s 7 of the Firearms Act, for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 14 years.

8 His…

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 Crago v Regina

Details

AGLC: Crago v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 68
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 68
Decision Date: 19 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the appellant, Crago, appealed against his sentence following a guilty plea to charges of firing a firearm in a manner likely to endanger the safety of a specified person, using a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence, maliciously damaging a motor vehicle, and possessing a firearm without being authorised to do so. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge failed to give effect to the finding of special circumstances, did not take into account the totality of the offending, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had properly considered the finding of special circumstances, whether the totality of the offending was taken into account, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered these issues in light of the appellant's guilty plea, the nature and circumstances of the offending, and the principles of sentencing. The court also considered whether the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, including the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the finding of special circumstances and the totality of the offending. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed. The court also noted that the appellant had a history of offending and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and held that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was upheld.

Orders