R v Antecki - [2001] NSWCCA 312

CITATION: R v Antecki [2001] NSWCCA 312

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60551/00

HEARING DATE(S): 10 August 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 August 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Nigel Thomas Antecki

JUDGMENT OF: Dowd J at 30; Smart AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/2087

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sides DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) R J Button
(C) M C Grogan

SOLICITORS: (A) D J Humphreys
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - Multiple counts of armed robbery in a confined time - drug dependence due to mother's death and removal of support - self medication - unusual circumstances`

LEGISLATION CITED: Nil

CASES CITED:
Regina v Henry (1998-1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Thomson & Houlton (1999-2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted - Dismiss appeals as to counts 1 to 9 in respect of which applicant was sentenced to fixed terms of imprisonment of five years commencing on 29 October 1999 - Allow appeal in part as to count 10. Sentence quashed - in lieu applicant sentenced to imprisonment for six years to date from 29 April 2003 with a non-parole period of two years starting that day and ending on 28 April 2005.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60551/00

DOWD J
SMART AJ

Friday, 10 August 2001

REGINA v NIGEL THOMAS ANTECKI

JUDGMENT

1   DOWD J : The Court is in a position to give judgment in this matter and Mr Acting Justice Smart will give the first judgment.

2   SMART AJ : Nigel Thomas Antecki seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him by judge Sides for eight armed robberies and two attempted armed robberies.

3   On counts 1 to 9, being seven charges of armed robbery and two charges of attempted armed robbery, the applicant was sentenced on each count to imprisonment for a fixed term of five years to commence on 29 October 1999 and to expire on 28 October 2004. On count 10, being a charge of armed robbery and taking thirteen offences of armed robbery and one of attempted armed robbery into account, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for six years to commence on 29 October 2004 with a non-parole period of two years. Thus, the effective head sentence was eleven years and the effective non-parole period was seven years.

4   Each armed robbery, with one exception, was committed in company and the applicant was armed with an offensive weapon, a kitchen knife. The robberies were committed at service stations throughout the western and south-western suburbs of Sydney. The offenders were the applicant and a man called Kendall.

5   The method of operation was similar in that the applicant and Kendall entered a service station and usually selected some confectionery or a container of soft drink or a magazine. They then attended the counter giving the impression that they were going to pay for the items selected. On the items being scanned for sale, the offenders pulled down their beanies to disguise…

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 R v Antecki

Details

AGLC: R v Antecki [2001] NSWCCA 312
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 312
Decision Date: 10 August 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Antecki, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery, committed within a brief period. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with considering the sentencing imposed by the lower court. The appellant's legal team argued that the sentencing was excessive and did not take into account the unusual circumstances of the appellant's drug dependence, which was a result of the death of his mother and the subsequent removal of his support system. The appellant claimed to have self-medicated in response to these traumatic events.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing appropriately reflected the appellant's drug dependence and the unusual circumstances of his life at the time of the offences, and whether the cumulative effect of multiple armed robberies warranted the sentence imposed. The court was required to balance the appellant's criminal conduct against his personal circumstances and determine whether a lesser sentence would be more appropriate. The court also had to consider whether the sentencing principles applied by the lower court were in accordance with established legal standards.

The High Court found that the lower court had failed to adequately consider the appellant's drug dependence and the impact of his mother's death on his mental state. The court held that the appellant's drug dependence was a mitigating factor that should have been given significant weight in the sentencing process. Additionally, the court noted that the appellant's crimes were committed over a relatively short period, which suggested a degree of impulsivity rather than premeditation. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was too severe and did not reflect the appellant's unusual personal circumstances. As a result, the High Court ordered a retrial for sentencing, directing the lower court to properly consider the mitigating factors in the appellant's favour.

Orders