FIELD v R - [2011] NSWCCA 70

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: FIELD v R [2011] NSWCCA 70
Hearing dates: 13 April 2011
Decision date: 21 April 2011
Before: CAMPBELL JA [1]
RS HULME J [2]
HOEBEN J [28]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: Criminal Law - Sentence - armed robbery armed with an offensive weapon - recidivist - mental condition
Cases Cited: R v Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSW LR 346
R v Letteri unreported, NSWCCA, 18 March 1992)
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Thomson and Houlton (2001) 49 NSWLR 383
Veen v R [No.2] (1987-1988) 164 CLR 465 at 477
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Kirt Raymond FIELD
Regina
Representation: Counsel:
N Steel
Ms V Lydiard
Solicitors:
S O'Connor Legal Aid Commission
S Kavanagh Solicitor Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2009/2850
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2009-10-13 00:00:00

Before:

Woods ADCJ

File Number(s):

2009/2850

Judgment

CAMPBELL JA : I agree with RS Hulme J.

RS HULME J : On 13 October 2009 the above named Applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced by Woods ADCJ in respect of seven offences. The offences and the sentences imposed were:-

1. Stealing a motor vehicle - imprisonment for a fixed term of 12 months from 7 November 2008.

2. Stealing a motor vehicle - imprisonment for a fixed term of 12 months from 7 November 2008.

3. Assault police - imprisonment for a fixed term of 12 months from 7 May 2009.

4. Assault police - imprisonment for a fixed term of 12 months from 7 May 2009.

5. Resist police - imprisonment for a fixed term of 12 months from 7 May 2009.

6. Drive in a manner dangerous - imprisonment for a fixed term of 9 months from 7 November 2009.

7. Robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon - imprisonment for 6 years, including a non-parole period of 4 years, both such periods commencing on 7 May 2010.

The effective sentence was thus imprisonment for 7.5 years including a non-parole period of 5.5 years both such periods commencing on 7 November 2008.

The circumstances of the offending are conveniently summarised in the remarks on sentence of his Honour about which there was no criticism and from which I quote:-

On 31 October 2008 the offender was released from custody to undertake a community treatment program. He was still subject to a number of sentences with current non-parole periods up until July 2010. He failed to attend the treatment program. He stopped taking his prescription medication for depression and psychosis.

On 4 November 2008 he attended at JG Autos in Orange and asked to test drive a Mitsibishi Magna. Once given the keys he sped off. The car was found the next day near a farmhouse at Trangie. This is the first matter of steal a vehicle on the s 166 Certificate.

At about 12.26am on 5 November a Jeffrey Chase was woken from…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read FIELD v R and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWCCA 70
Decision Date: 21 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Field v R concerned an appellant who had been convicted of armed robbery, having committed the crime while armed with an offensive weapon. The appellant, a recidivist with a history of criminal behaviour, also presented with a mental condition that was considered in the sentencing process. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the sentence handed down by the lower court, which included both a term of imprisonment and a non-parole period.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the appropriate sentencing for the crime of armed robbery, particularly when the offender is a repeat offender with a mental condition. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and whether it adequately took into account the mitigating factors of the appellant's mental condition and status as a recidivist. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessive, while the Crown contended that it was appropriate given the severity of the crime.

The High Court, in its judgment, examined the principles of sentencing for serious offences such as armed robbery. It recognised the need to balance the need for deterrence with the individual circumstances of the offender. The court found that while the appellant's mental condition and history of criminal behaviour were mitigating factors, they did not outweigh the need to impose a sentence that would effectively deter similar offences in the future. The court held that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, and thus affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders