Daniels v R - [2007] NSWCCA 372

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Daniels v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 372

HEARING DATE(S): 12 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Hulme J at 22; Simpson J at 23

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 12 December 2007

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Sentence - Relevance of prior record - No error of application by sentencing judge - Imposition not manifestly excessive

CASES CITED: R v A [2004] NSWCCA 292
R v Kain [2004] NSWCCA 143
R v McNaughton [2006] 66 NSWLR 566
R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES: Michael James Daniels (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/2950

COUNSEL: C. Loukas (Applicant)
J. Girdham (Respondent/Crown)

SOLICITORS: J. Pearson (Legal Aid Commission) Applicant
S. Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0655

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Donovan DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 16 February 2007

CCA 2007/2950

GROVE J
HULME J
SIMPSON J
12 December 2007

Michael James DANIELS v REGINA

Judgment

1 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Donovan DCJ in the Sydney District Court. The applicant had been committed for sentence following his plea of guilty to a single count of robbery. His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of two years and a balance term of two years. The commencing date of sentence was specified as 21 February 2006 and the first date of eligibility for parole will be 20 February 2008.

2 There is no challenge to the facts found by his Honour. On the afternoon of Tuesday 21 February 2006 a Ms Wong, the catering manager at the University of Technology was balancing the daily takings. She locked the door to the room and opened the safe. There was approximately $2,300 in the safe and a further amount on the table of $2,500 which she was counting.

3 There was a knock on the door which she ignored. The knocking continued and became more persistent and, believing that it was a member of staff Ms Wong opened the door slightly and was confronted by the applicant who had pulled up a t-shirt to cover the lower part of his face. He pushed into the room and demanded money. Ms Wong reacted by pushing the safe door closed and dropping the handle which had the effect of locking it. In a threatening tone the applicant demanded to know the combination but Ms Wong responded that her boss knew the combination and would need to open it for her. Thereupon the applicant took the money which was on the table and started to leave the room. In fact, security guards had been alerted to the presence of the applicant on the campus and Ms Wong saw them and called to them to detain the applicant. They did so and after a brief struggle placed him…

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 Daniels v R

Details

AGLC: Daniels v R [2007] NSWCCA 372
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 372
Decision Date: 12 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault and sentenced to imprisonment. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentencing judge erred in his consideration of the appellant's prior criminal record. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive due to the sentencing judge's reliance on his criminal history. The High Court of Australia reviewed the sentence to ensure that it was not the result of an error in principle or application of the law.

The central legal issue was whether the sentencing judge had erred in his consideration of the appellant's criminal history. The court needed to determine if the judge had correctly applied the law in sentencing and if the sentence was excessive. The court also examined whether the judge had failed to consider mitigating factors that should have been taken into account. The primary concern was whether the sentence imposed was a result of an error in principle or application of the law.

The High Court of Australia found no error in the application of the law by the sentencing judge. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's criminal history. The court determined that the judge had correctly balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors and that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes. The court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in his consideration of the appellant's criminal history and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court affirmed that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes and that the trial judge had correctly balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders