Geddes v The Queen - [2012] NSWCCA 94

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Geddes v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCCA 94

Hearing Date(s): 7 May 2012

Decision Date: 15 May 2012

Jurisdiction:

Before:
Whealy JA [1]
Hidden J [56]
Schmidt J [57]

Decision:
(1) Extension of time for leave to appeal granted.

(2) Leave to appeal against sentence granted.

(3) Sentence imposed by the sentencing judge on 11 February 2011 be set aside and in lieu thereof the following sentences imposed:

Count 1: Imprisonment for a fixed term of 15 months to commence from 10 December 2008 and to expire on 9 March 2010.

Count 2: Imprisonment for a fixed term of 10 months to commence from 10 August 2009 and to expire on 9 June 2010.

Count 3: Imprisonment for a fixed term of 2 months to commence from 10 August 2009 and to expire on 9 October 2009.

Count 4: A term of imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years to commence from 10 June 2010 and to expire on 9 June 2012 with a balance of term 2 years and 3 months to expire on 9 September 2014.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - sentence - whether error emerges from sentencing judge's remarks during hearing - whether sentencing judge erred in failing to account for appellant's protective custody in sentencing.

Legislation Cited:

Cases Cited:
- R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94
- R v Thompson [2005] NSWCCA 340; 156 A Crim R 467
- RWB v R [2010] NSWCCA 147; 202 A Crim R 209

Texts Cited:

Category: Principal judgment

Parties:
Aaron James Geddes (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)

Representation

- Counsel:
Counsel:
Ms J. Trevallion (Applicant)
Ms M. Cinque (Respondent)

- Solicitors:
Solicitors:
Mandy Hull & Associates (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File number(s):
2009/130988

Decision Under Appeal

- Court / Tribunal: District Court

- Before: Hock DCJ

- Date of Decision: 11 February 2011

- Citation: R v Geddes

- Court File Number(s) 2009/130988

Publication Restriction:

JUDGMENT

WHEALY JA: Aaron Geddes, (the applicant) seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge at the Sydney District Court on 11 February 2011.
On 23 August 2010 when the matter was listed for trial, the applicant pleaded guilty to four charges, namely:
Count 1: on 20 October 2008, accessory after the fact to robbery in company contrary to ss 97(1)/349 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (maximum penalty 14 years' imprisonment).
Count 2: on 5 November 2008, accessory after the fact to armed robbery contrary to ss 97(2)/349 Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty 14 years' imprisonment).
Count 3: between 4 November 2008 and 11 December 2008, recklessly possessing proceeds of crime contrary to s 193B(3) Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty 10 years' imprisonment).
Count 4: on 10 December 2008, robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty 25 years' imprisonment).
There was no applicable standard non-parole period.
Her Honour…

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 Geddes v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Geddes v R [2012] NSWCCA 94
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 94
Decision Date: 15 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geddes has appealed against his conviction and sentence for various drug-related offences. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issues before the Court were whether any error was evident in the sentencing judge's remarks during the hearing and whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to account for the appellant's placement in protective custody when determining his sentence.

The Court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in his remarks during the hearing, as the comments did not impact the fairness of the proceedings or the sentence imposed. However, the Court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in not taking into account the appellant's placement in protective custody. The Court held that the appellant's placement in protective custody was a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence, as it reflected the appellant's vulnerability and the need for protection from other prisoners. The Court found that the sentencing judge's failure to consider this factor constituted an error of law, which required the sentence to be set aside and the case to be remitted for re-sentencing.

The High Court set aside the appellant's sentence and remitted the case to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing, taking into account the appellant's placement in protective custody. The Court did not address the appeal against conviction, as it was not necessary to do so given the outcome of the appeal against sentence.

Orders