Qoro v R

Case [2020] NSWCCA 276 23 October 2020

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Qoro v R [2020] NSWCCA 276
Hearing dates: 25 September 2020
Decision date: 23 October 2020
Before: Simpson AJA at [1 ];
Rothman J at [2 ];
Bellew J at [78]
Decision:
(1)   Leave to appeal granted;
(2)   The sentence imposed on the applicant by the District Court on 6 December 2019 for the offence of one count of armed robbery committed at Orange on 1 September 2018 is quashed;
(3)   The applicant is sentenced, for armed robbery committed at Orange on 1 September 2018 to a head sentence of 3 years and 6 months, commencing 5 June 2019 and concluding 4 December 2022, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 1 month, concluding 4 July 2021. The applicant is first eligible for parole on 4 July 2021.

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE APPEAL – special circumstances – failure to give effect to finding as a result of the effect of accumulation – error disclosed – additional evidence taken into account on re-sentencing – appeal allowed – applicant resentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 97(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Elwood v R [2019] NSWCCA 315
Kennedy v R [2010] NSWCCA 260
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Lehn v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 205; [2016] NSWCCA 255
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111
Sabongi v R (2015) 249 A Crim R 167; [2015] NSWCCA 25
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Joseph Seka Qoro (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
B Neild (Applicant)
M Kumar (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Service (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/272752
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Jurisdiction:

Crime

Date of Decision:

06 December 2019

Before:

Woods QC ADCJ

File Number(s):

2018/272752

Judgment

SIMPSON AJA: I agree with Rothman J.
ROTHMAN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by Woods QC ADCJ in the District Court on 6 December 2019. The applicant had been committed for sentence for one count of armed robbery, committed at Orange on 1 September 2018.
The offence is a contravention of s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) for which there is a prescribed maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment and no standard non-parole period. There is, however, a guideline judgment in relation to this offence. [1]
1. R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346; [1999] NSWCCA 111.
For the foregoing offence, the applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of 3 years and 9 months, commencing 5 June 2019 and expiring 4 March 2023, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, concluding 4 December 2021.
During the proceedings on sentence, the sentencing…

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 Qoro v R

Details

AGLC: Qoro v R [2020] NSWCCA 276
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 276
Decision Date: 23 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Qoro v R, the applicant, Qoro, appealed against his sentence for a crime committed. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appeal's validity and deciding on the appropriate sentence. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Qoro adequately reflected the special circumstances of his case, particularly in light of a failure to give effect to these findings due to the accumulation effect. The court was required to assess whether the trial judge's error in not giving proper effect to the special circumstances constituted a material error that warranted a re-sentencing.

The High Court examined the sentencing process meticulously, considering the trial judge's failure to properly account for the special circumstances that warranted a lesser sentence. The court found that the trial judge had erred materially by not giving effect to these findings, which resulted in an accumulation effect that led to an unjust outcome. Furthermore, the court noted that additional evidence was considered during the re-sentencing process, which the trial judge had not taken into account initially. Based on this analysis, the court concluded that the error was significant enough to warrant a re-sentencing to ensure that Qoro's punishment appropriately reflected the special circumstances of his case.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and resentenced Qoro, taking into account the special circumstances that had previously been overlooked. The court's decision highlighted the importance of accurately considering all relevant factors during sentencing to ensure justice is served. The final orders of the court mandated that Qoro be resentenced in light of the special circumstances, reflecting the court's commitment to correcting the error and ensuring that the sentence was just and appropriate.

Orders