Edwards v R - [2020] NSWCCA 141

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Edwards v R [2020] NSWCCA 141
Hearing dates: 9 June 2020
Date of orders: 1 July 2020
Decision date: 01 July 2020
Before: Johnson J at [1]
Harrison J at [2]
Hamill J at [27]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
APPEAL – sentence appeal – where appellant assaulted victim with knife with intent to rob – where appellant self-represented – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether sentence unreasonable or plainly unjust

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1)

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jessy Edwards (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
M England (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/111243
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court, Newcastle

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

29 March 2019

Before:

Gartelmann SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/135186

Judgment

JOHNSON J: I agree with Harrison J.
HARRISON J: Jessy Edwards seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Gartelmann SC on 29 March 2019 in the District Court at Newcastle. Mr Edwards had been found guilty on 1 February 2019 following a trial before his Honour and a jury of one count of assault with intent to rob whilst armed with an offensive weapon contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for that offence is 20 years imprisonment.
His Honour sentenced Mr Edwards to imprisonment for 4 years commencing on 27 December 2018 and expiring on 26 December 2022 with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months expiring on 26 June 2021.
Mr Edwards appeared for himself without legal assistance in this Court and did not file submissions in support of his single relevant ground of appeal that was to the effect that his Honour’s sentence was manifestly excessive. That ground of appeal complains that the sentence was too long. The appeal to this Court was limited to a challenge to the sentence imposed: an additional ground of appeal drawing attention to the fact that, in Mr Edwards’ words, the case against him was purely circumstantial was understandably not pursued.
The Crown opposes the grant of leave to appeal.
His Honour described Mr Edwards’ offending in the following terms:

“On 5 January 2018 the victim was working at Newcastle University’s Callaghan campus. At about 7pm she left the campus and began to walk home alone. Her route took her through a complex of tunnels beneath an overpass. As she travelled through a tunnel, she passed the offender walking in the opposite direction. Shortly afterwards, the offender ran up behind her. He grabbed her around the neck and held a knife near her throat. The victim described the knife as small and like a pocket knife. The offender asked the victim if she had any money. She said she had none but had a card. He asked what else she had. She said, ‘Nothing’. The offender…

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 The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 141
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 141
Decision Date: 01 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Edwards, appealed against his sentence following a conviction for assault with intent to rob. The victim was attacked with a knife. Edwards appeared in the court self-represented. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether it was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

The court acknowledged that the appellant had not denied the offence and accepted that he had acted violently. However, it considered whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crime. The court noted that the appellant had no prior convictions and had shown remorse. Despite this, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or unreasonable or plainly unjust. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime and took into account the need to deter similar offences.

The appeal was dismissed. The court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Orders