Dodds v R - [2009] NSWCCA 191

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: DODDS, Shane Barry v R [2009] NSWCCA 191

HEARING DATE(S): 16 July 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 July 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 13; Howie J at 14; Fullerton J at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 16 July 2009

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - whether sentence manifestly excessive - breaking into house and stealing - utility of JIRS statistics in assessing the appropriateness of a sentence

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242; 163 A Crim R 381
Robertson v R [2007] NSWCCA 270; 177 A Crim R 121

PARTIES: Shane Barry Dodds (App)
The Crown (Resp)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/15329

COUNSEL: W Hunt (App)
M Grogan (Resp)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (App)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Resp)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2007/15329

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Solomon DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 7 December 2007

2007/15329

HODGSON JA
HOWIE J
FULLERTON J
16 JULY 2009

DODDS, Shane Barry v R

Judgment

1 FULLERTON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court by his Honour Judge Solomon on 7 December 2007 after he entered a plea of guilty on 9 October 2007 to breaking into a private house at Middle Cove on 6 July 2006 and stealing property valued at $40,000. The charge was laid pursuant to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. It attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years. The applicant was arrested on 31 January 2007 on the basis of a match between his DNA and blood deposited at the premises.

2 His Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of 2 years and 1 month dating from 7 December 2007 with a balance of term of 2 years and 2 months.

3 The challenge to the sentence is that it is manifestly excessive in light of his Honour’s finding that the offence was below the mid-range of objective seriousness. Support for that submission is said to derive from the Judicial Information Research System (JIRS) statistics which reveal that in only nine per cent of sentences for offending against s 112(1) which attracted full-time custody was a non-parole period imposed greater than 2 years and 1 month and only three per cent of sentences attracted a total term of imprisonment greater than or equal to 4 years and 3 months.

4 The applicant’s counsel frankly conceded that the statistics are a “blunt tool” consistent with this Court having repeatedly cautioned against the utility of referring to the JIRS statistics in assessing the appropriateness of a sentence under review. As Rothman J emphasised in Robertson v R [2007] NSWCCA 270; 177 A Crim R 121 the principal signposts for sentence are the maximum sentence provided for by the Parliament and the…

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 Dodds v R

Details

AGLC: Dodds v R [2009] NSWCCA 191
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 191
Decision Date: 16 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dodds v R was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Dodds, had been convicted of breaking into a house and stealing property. He appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was so disproportionate to the crime that it constituted an error in the court’s exercise of discretion. The court was also required to consider the role and relevance of Judicial Inter-agency Reference Scheme (JIRS) statistics in evaluating the appropriateness of the sentence.

The High Court examined the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the crime and should not be manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character of the offender, and the need for general deterrence. The court assessed whether the sentence could be seen as outside the range of reasonable outcomes. In this case, the court noted that the statistics from JIRS, which provide data on sentences imposed for similar offences, could be a useful tool in determining whether a sentence was manifestly excessive. The court held that while such statistics were not determinative, they could inform the court's discretion in assessing the proportionality of a sentence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders