PMW v The Queen - [2009] NSWCCA 34

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
PMW v R [2009] NSWCCA 34

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/7227

HEARING DATE(S):
11 February, 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 February 2009

EX TEMPORE DATE:
11 February 2009

PARTIES:
PMW (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J Blanch J Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
06/61/0082

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Woods ADCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
15 November, 2006

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
Regina v PMW

COUNSEL:
J Stratton SC (Applicant)
P Miller (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor, Legal Aid Commission of NSW
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law
robbery in company with wounding
parity of sentence

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act, 1900, s98
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s19(1)
Children (Detention Centres) Act 1987, s28

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
Leave granted to appeal. Appeal allowed. Quash sentences imposed in District Court. Instead applicant sentenced to non-parole period of 2 years 9 months to date from 8 June, 2006 and a balance of term of 2 years 9 months. Direct sentence be served in a Juvenile Justice institution. Eligible for release to parole on 7 March, 2009.

PUBLICATION RESTRICTION:
Non publication of name of applicant

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/7227

GROVE J
BLANCH J
KIRBY J

Wednesday 11 February 2009

PMW v Regina

JUDGMENT

GROVE J: We are in a position to give judgment in this matter and Justice Blanch will give that judgment.

BLANCH J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed at Dubbo District Court on 15 November 2006. The applicant entered a plea of guilty to a charge of robbery in company with wounding contrary to s98 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is twenty-five years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of seven years. He was sentenced to a non-parole period of three years and six months with a balance of term of three years and six months. The non-parole period commenced on 8 June 2006, the day the applicant went into custody.

The offence occurred at Dubbo on Sunday 24 April 2005. The victim, who was sixty-three years of age, was the driver of a pizza delivery van and he was delivering a pizza at 7.45 pm which had been ordered for 15 Collins Avenue. When the victim got out of his vehicle to get the pizzas, the applicant came up and said to him “Come on give us your money, we want your money.” The victim said he had no money and the applicant struck the victim with a metal bar. His co-offender then stabbed the victim in the leg with a knife. As the victim was trying to get back into his vehicle, the applicant ran around the car and took the victim’s mobile phone from the vehicle and ran away. Witnesses had noted that the house where the pizza van was to make the delivery was empty and was in darkness and…

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 PMW v The Queen

Details

AGLC: PMW v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 34
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 34
Decision Date: 11 February 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of PMW versus The Queen involved a dispute concerning the sentencing of the appellant for robbery in company with wounding. The appellant, PMW, was charged with robbing a victim while in the company of another individual, during which the victim was wounded. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which is the highest court in the Australian judicial system. The primary issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was proportionate and in line with the principles of parity in sentencing.

The legal issue at hand centred on the principle of parity in sentencing, which mandates that similar offences should attract similar sentences, barring any exceptional circumstances. The Court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was consistent with the sentences handed down in comparable cases of robbery in company with wounding. Additionally, the Court examined whether the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the role of the appellant in the crime and the extent of the harm caused to the victim.

In its reasoning, the Court noted that while the trial judge had considered various factors in imposing the sentence, it was imperative to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and aligned with the principle of parity. The Court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the specific role of the appellant in the crime and the relative contributions of the co-offenders. Consequently, the Court held that the sentence was not in parity with sentences in similar cases and was, therefore, excessive. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a retrial with specific directions regarding the sentencing process.

The final orders of the Court included the quashing of the appellant's conviction and the ordering of a retrial, with explicit directions for the sentencing judge to ensure that the sentence imposed would be in line with the principle of parity and would appropriately reflect the role of the appellant in the commission of the crime. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to the principle of parity in sentencing to ensure justice and consistency in the criminal justice system.

Orders