Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v R

Edwards v R

Case [2021] NSWCCA 57 9 April 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Edwards v R [2021] NSWCCA 57
Hearing dates: 15 March 2021
Date of orders: 9 April 2021
Decision date: 09 April 2021
Before: Payne JA at [1]
Bellew J at [4]
Button J at [69]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal granted.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Offences – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of stealing from the person of another and one count of robbery in company – Additional count of robbery in company contained in a Form 1 – Robbery at a convenience store – Where the applicant snatched a wallet from a customer before returning to the store and producing a knife and threatening the proprietors – Where the applicant threatened the safety of the proprietors’ four year old child if his demand for money was not met – Where the applicant was aged 18 at the time of the offending and had a significantly disadvantaged upbringing in which he was consistently exposed to abuse – Where the applicant had a lengthy criminal history and was on bail and on probation at the time of the offending – Whether the sentencing judge was “distracted” from a proper consideration of the applicant’s subjective case by his application of the relevant guideline – Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly analyse the applicant’s lengthy criminal history – Whether sentence was manifestly excessive bearing in mind the applicant’s subjective case – Leave to appeal granted - Appeal dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Attorney-General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 57; [2013] HCA 37
Dinsdalev The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Power and ors. v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26
R v Amati [2019] NSWCCA 193
R v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Murchie [1999] NSWCCA 424; (1999) 108 A Crim R 482
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534
Ryan v R [2009] NSWCCA 183
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Dwayne Edwards – Applicant
Regina - Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
P Coady – Applicant
C Young – Respondent
Solicitors:
R Chant, Aboriginal Legal Service NSW – Applicant
C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions NSW – Respondent

File Number(s): 2019/181824
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

22 May 2020

Before:

His Honour Judge Ingram SC

Judgment

PAYNE JA: In Dinsdalev The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54

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 Edwards v R

Details

AGLC: Edwards v R [2021] NSWCCA 57
Case: [2021] NSWCCA 57
Decision Date: 09 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edwards, an 18-year-old with a history of criminal activity, was convicted of stealing from a person and robbing another person in company. The applicant’s appeal against his sentence was the focus of the case before the court. He argued that the sentencing judge had not properly considered his personal circumstances, including his difficult upbringing and extensive criminal record, which he claimed were mitigating factors. Edwards sought leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.

The court had to determine whether the sentencing judge was indeed distracted by the application of sentencing guidelines and whether the lengthy criminal history was inadequately analysed. It was also necessary to assess if the sentence was excessively harsh considering the applicant’s background and mitigating factors. The court's analysis included a review of how the sentencing judge weighed these personal circumstances against the statutory requirements and case law on sentencing in similar circumstances.

In its decision, the court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the mitigating factors presented by the applicant. The personal history of abuse and difficult upbringing, alongside the applicant's age and criminal history, warranted a more lenient approach in sentencing. The court held that the sentence was indeed excessive when considering the applicant's subjective case. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal. However, upon reviewing the appeal, it was determined that the original sentence was not so manifestly excessive as to warrant a reduction, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

The court did not alter the sentence but confirmed that the applicant’s mitigating circumstances should have been more thoroughly considered. The leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed as the sentence did not meet the threshold for being manifestly excessive.

Orders