CROOK, Darroll Charles v Regina - [2008] NSWCCA 84

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: CROOK, Darroll Charles v Regina [2008] NSWCCA 84
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 10 March 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 April 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Adams J at 2; Latham J at 23

DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal is granted; (2) The sentence below is quashed; (3) The appellant is sentenced to a non-parole period of one year and nine months commencing 12 March 2007 and ending 11 December 2008 with a balance of term of two years commencing on 12 December 2008 and ending on 11 December 2010. The earliest date upon which the appellant is eligible for release on parole is 12 December 2008.

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - breaking and entering and malicious damage - offender's mother's home - substance abuse and psychiatric problems - objective seriousness below mid-range - strong subjective features - 25 per cent discount for plea - sentence of 5 years 3 months with non-parole period 3 years excessive - substantial progress in rehabilitation - need for supervision following release - resentenced to 3 years 9 months with non-parole period 1 year 9 months.

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

PARTIES: Darroll Charles Crook - Applicant
The Crown - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3053

COUNSEL: C A Davenport SC - Applicant
D Woodburn - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor (Legal Aid) - Applicant
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 06/61/0117

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Woods ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 12 June 2007 (Sentence)

CCA 2007/3053
DC 06/61/0117

GILES JA
ADAMS J
LATHAM J
Monday 21 April 2008

CROOK, Darroll Charles v Regina

Judgment

1 GILES JA: I agree with Adams J.

2 ADAMS J:

Introduction

3 On 12 June 2007, following his pleas of guilty, the applicant was sentenced in the District Court on two charges as follows –

Crimes Act

4 The applicant was sentenced on the first charge to an overall term of 5 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on 12 March 2007 and, on the second charge, to a fixed term of 9 months imprisonment commencing on 12 June 2007. It will be seen that these sentences were wholly concurrent. The sentencing judge discounted the sentences by 25% for the early pleas.

6 The appellant seeks to appeal from the severity of the sentence on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read CROOK, Darroll Charles v Regina and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWCCA 84
Decision Date: 21 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Crook v Regina involved Darroll Charles Crook, who was convicted of breaking and entering and causing malicious damage to his mother's home. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal centred on the appropriateness of the original sentence, which was considered excessive given the offender's personal circumstances and progress in rehabilitation.

The court was required to determine whether the original sentence, which was 5 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years, was justified. Factors considered included the objective seriousness of the offence, which was deemed to be below the mid-range, alongside the strong subjective features of the offender's background, which included substance abuse and psychiatric issues. The court also had to assess the 25 per cent discount applied for the offender's plea of guilty. After weighing these factors, the Court of Appeal found the original sentence to be disproportionate.

In light of these considerations, the Court of Appeal decided to resentence Crook to 3 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 9 months. This decision recognised the substantial progress Crook had made in rehabilitation and the need for continued supervision following his release. The court emphasised that the revised sentence would adequately address the purposes of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community, while also taking into account the offender's personal circumstances.

Orders