Legal Research
Cases
Pattison v Regina

Pattison v Regina

Case [2007] NSWCCA 186 29 June 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Pattison v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 186

HEARING DATE(S): 14 May 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Hidden J at 2; Price J at 3

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal be granted. 2. Quash the sentence imposed by Viney ADCJ for charge 11 being an offence contrary to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. 3. Sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 2 years to date from 17 November 2008 and expire on 16 November 2010 with a balance of term of 2 years and 6 months expiring on 16 May 2013 for charge 11. The earliest date the applicant will be eligible for release to parole is 16 November 2010.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - multiple offences - sentence manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 s 112(1), s 177, s 154A(1)(b),
s 178BA(1), s 188(1), s 300(2)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s 6(3)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Des Rosiers v R [2006] NSWCCA 16
Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v M.A.K R v M.S.K [2006] NSWCCA 381
R v McNaughton [2006] NSWCCA 242
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Webster [2005] NSWCCA 110
Regina v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28
Regina v Stankovic [2006] NSWCCA 229

PARTIES: Nathan John Pattison
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/143

COUNSEL: R Herps - DPP
Nathan John Pattison - Self Represented

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh - DPP

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/21/1017

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Viney ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 8 May 2006

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Regina v Nathan Pattison

2007/143

McClellan CJ at CL
Hidden J
Price J
29 June 2007

Nathan John PATTISON v REGINA

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Price J.

2 HIDDEN J: I agree with Price J.

3 PRICE J: The applicant Nathan John Pattison seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him at the District Court at Penrith on 8 May 2006.

4 On 20 September 2004 the applicant had pleaded guilty in the District Court to an indictment containing two counts. The first count is one of break and enter a dwelling house at Cranebrook on 13 February 2002 and commit a serious indictable offence, namely larceny, contrary to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. An offence contrary to s 112(1) is punishable by imprisonment for 14 years.

5 The second count is one of receiving stolen property between 18 December 2001 and 10 October 2002 contrary to s 188(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. An offence contrary to s 188(1) is punishable by imprisonment for 10 years. Two matters of receiving contrary to s 188(1) and two matters of larceny contrary to s 154A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act on a Form 1 were taken into account on sentence on count…

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 Pattison v Regina

Details

AGLC: Pattison v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 186
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 186
Decision Date: 29 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pattison was charged with multiple offences including possession of a firearm, drug-related offences, and assault. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Pattison, taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all charges. The primary issue was whether the proposed sentence was manifestly excessive, given the totality of the circumstances and the principles of sentencing. The court considered the nature and circumstances of each offence, the offender's culpability, and the need to deter and rehabilitate. It also weighed the impact of the cumulative offences and the potential for cumulative sentencing to be unjust.

The court concluded that while each individual offence warranted a penalty, the cumulative effect of sentencing each offence separately could result in a sentence that was disproportionately severe. The court recognised the need for a just and proportionate sentence that reflected the totality of Pattison's offending, including the need for deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation. It found that the proposed sentence, when viewed in its entirety, did not adequately account for the principles of proportionality and justice. The court determined that the sentence was manifestly excessive and ordered a reassessment of the appropriate penalty.

The court ordered that the case be remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration, with specific directions to ensure that the final sentence was proportionate and just, taking into account all relevant factors. The court emphasised the importance of a balanced approach that recognised the seriousness of the offences but also considered the need for a sentence that was fair and appropriate in the circumstances. The final orders ensured that the sentencing process would be re-evaluated with a focus on achieving a just outcome that adhered to the principles of criminal sentencing.

Orders