Legal Research
Cases
Glare v R

Glare v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 194 22 July 2015

Sentencing

Aggregate Sentence

Reduction for Plea of Guilty

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Glare v R [2015] NSWCCA 194
Hearing dates: 17 July 2015
Date of orders: 22 July 2015
Decision date: 22 July 2015
Before: Leeming JA at [1]
Hamill J at [2]
Fagan J at [32]
Decision:
(1) Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal.
(2) Quash the sentence imposed in the District Court and in lieu thereof the applicant is sentenced to an aggregate sentence comprising an aggregate non-parole period of one year and three months commencing 30 March 2014 and expiring 29 June 2015 with a balance of term of one year and three months commencing 30 June 2015 and expiring 29 September 2016.
(3) Pursuant to s 50(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), order that the applicant is to be released on parole at the conclusion of the non-parole period. Note that the non-parole period has expired and that the applicant is entitled to be released forthwith.
(4) Pursuant to s 51(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) order that the applicant’s parole be subject to the usual conditions under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) including a condition that the applicant is to obey the reasonable directions of the probation and parole service including such directions as to counselling in relation to drug rehabilitation as the officers of that service may provide.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – aggregate sentence – necessary to record indicative sentences for individual offences taking into account reduction for plea of guilty – error disclosed – applicant re-sentenced
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application (No 1); R v Ponfield and Ors [1999] NSWCCA 435; 48 NSWLR 327
Attorney General’s Reference No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; 56 NSWLR 146
Green and Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 313 ALR 451
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26;189 CLR 295
R v Cahill [2015] NSWCCA 53
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Christopher James Glare (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
P Coady (Applicant)
N Adams (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2014/123762
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court sitting at Albury

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

23 October 2014

Before:

Judge Cogswell SC

File Number(s):

2013/315258

Judgment

LEEMING JA: I agree with Hamill J, for the reasons his Honour gives, that the Crown was correct to concede that the sentence imposed on 23 October 2014 is attended by error, and that a lesser sentence is required. I agree with the aggregate sentence proposed by Hamill J and the indicative sentences indicated by his Honour, and the consequence that the applicant is…

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 Glare v R

Details

AGLC: Glare v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 194
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 194
Decision Date: 22 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Glare v R involved the sentencing of the applicant for multiple offences. The applicant was found guilty of a series of criminal offences, including armed robbery, assault, and possession of a firearm. The primary legal issue was whether the aggregate sentence imposed was appropriate and whether the court had correctly applied the principle of considering indicative sentences for each individual offence, taking into account the reduction for the applicant's plea of guilty. The applicant argued that the sentencing process was flawed and that the aggregate sentence was excessive.

The court examined the sentencing principles and whether the trial judge had properly considered the individual indicative sentences and the appropriate reduction for the plea of guilty. It was determined that the trial judge had not sufficiently articulated the indicative sentences for each offence, which was a critical step in the sentencing process. Additionally, the court found that the judge had not adequately considered the reduction for the plea of guilty, which should have been reflected in the final aggregate sentence. The court identified these errors as significant, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the court ordered a re-sentencing of the applicant. The court highlighted the importance of correctly applying the sentencing principles, particularly in relation to the calculation of indicative sentences and the appropriate discount for a guilty plea. The court emphasised that each offence should be considered individually, and the sentencing judge should clearly articulate the rationale for the final sentence imposed. The applicant was to be re-sentenced in light of these findings.

The court's final orders were that the applicant be re-sentenced, with the trial judge required to provide a detailed explanation of the indicative sentences for each offence, taking into account the reduction for the plea of guilty. This ensures that the principles of sentencing are properly applied and that the final sentence is both just and proportionate to the crimes committed.

Orders