Dickinson v The Queen - [2016] NSWCCA 301

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Dickinson v R [2016] NSWCCA 301
Hearing dates: 9 September 2016
Date of orders: 16 December 2016
Decision date: 16 December 2016
Before: Beazley P at [1];
Garling J at [2];
Hidden AJ at [3]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal is granted and appeal is allowed.

(2) The aggregate sentence passed in the District Court is confirmed, but is directed to commence on 10 September 2014. Accordingly, that sentence will comprise a non-parole period of 5 years, commencing on 10 September 2014 and expiring on 9 September 2019, and a balance of term of 2½ years, commencing on 10 September 2019 and expiring on 9 March 2022.
(3) The applicant is referred to the Drug Court for assessment as the subject of a compulsory drug treatment order.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence appeal – break enter and steal offences – aggregate sentence – challenge to sentencing judge’s assessment of objective gravity of offences – commencement date of sentence.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 21A
Drug Court Act 1998, s 5A(1), s 18B
Cases Cited: Baumer v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 51
Gal v R [2015] NSWCCA 242
Mapp v R (2010) 206 A Crim R 497, [2010] NSWCCA 269
Martin v R [2016] NSWCCA 104
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566, [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Ponfield & Ors (1999) 48 NSWLR 327; (1999) NSWCCA 435
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Applicant – Steven Dickinson
Respondent Crown – Regina
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant – David Barrow
Respondent Crown – Eric Balodis
Solicitors:
Applicant – Janet Witmer, Legal Aid NSW
Respondent Crown – C. Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2014/352616
Publication restriction: No
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

17 July 2015

Before:

Haesler DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/82017

Judgment

BEAZLEY P: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Hidden AJ. I agree with his Honour’s reasons and proposed orders.
GARLING J: I agree with Hidden AJ.
HIDDEN AJ: The applicant, Steven Dickinson, pleaded guilty in the District Court to four counts of break, enter and steal, and asked that four further offences of break, enter and steal and one of attempted break, enter and steal be taken into account on a Form 1. The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence of 7½ years with a non-parole period of 5 years, commencing on 10 November 2014. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

Facts

The offences were committed between January and March 2014. A brief summary of them is sufficient and it is preferable to do so in chronological order, distinguishing those which were counts from those which were on the Form 1.

On 22 January 2014, the applicant broke…

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 Dickinson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Dickinson v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 301
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 301
Decision Date: 16 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dickinson appealed against his conviction and sentence, which arose from a series of break, enter, and steal offences. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was the legality of the aggregate sentence imposed by the sentencing judge and the assessment of the objective gravity of the offences. The court also needed to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in setting the commencement date of the sentence.

The court examined the sentencing principles and the relevant legal authorities to assess whether the aggregate sentence was lawful. It found that the sentencing judge had correctly considered the gravity of the offences, taking into account the cumulative effect of Dickinson's criminal behaviour. The court upheld the aggregate sentence, ruling that the sentencing judge's assessment of the objective gravity of the offences was appropriate and in line with established legal principles. The court also confirmed that the sentencing judge did not err in setting the commencement date of the sentence.

The High Court dismissed Dickinson's appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The court found no legal errors in the sentencing process and upheld the original sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the decision of the lower court was affirmed.

Orders