R v Arnold - [2004] NSWCCA 294

CITATION: REGINA v ARNOLD [2004] NSWCCA 294

HEARING DATE(S): 14 July 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 August 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Adams J at 2; Kirby J at 77

DECISION: Counts 7 to 10: On each count, imprisonment for a term of 6 years to commence on 23 February 2003 and conclude on 22 February 2009; Counts 11 to 17: On each count, imprisonment for 7 years to commence on 23 February 2004 and conclude on 22 February 2011; Count 18: Imprisonment for 6 years to commence on 23 February 2005 and conclude on 22 February 2011; Count 19: Imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months to commence on 23 February 2008 and conclude on 22 November 2011; Count 24: Imprisonment for 9 years to commence on 23 February 2009 and conclude on 22 February 2018. Non-parole period of 1 year to commence on 23 February 2011 and expire on 22 February 2012; Count 21: Imprisonment for 7 years to commence on 23 February 2011 and to conclude on 22 February 2018 Non-parole period of 1 year to commence 23 February 2011 and conclude on 22 February 2012; Counts 1 to 6 and 20, 22 and 23: The sentences on these counts are confirmed; Overall sentence commences on 23 February 2003 and expires on 22 February 2018 (rather than 22 February 2023) Eligible to be released on parole on 22 February 2012 (rather than 22 February 2015).

CATCHWORDS: Sentence appeal - series of serious offences - history of mental disturbance - effect on sentence - effect of accumulation on utilitarian discount - need to adjust overall sentence to demonstrate discount

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 s44
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 s6(3)

CASES CITED: R v George [2004] NSWCCA 247
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

PARTIES :
Regina
v
Bradley Scott ARNOLD (Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60157/04

COUNSEL: P Power SC (Crown)
R J Button (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor (Crown)
S Kavanagh (Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0179; 03/11/10184

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Finnane DCJ

60157/04

WOOD CJ at CL
ADAMS J
KIRBY J
MONDAY 30 AUGUST 2004

REGINA v BRADLEY SCOTT ARNOLD

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Adams J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour.

2 ADAMS J: Following his pleas of guilty in the Local Court, Arnold was committed for sentence in the District Court for a crime spree between 20 December 2001 and 10 July 2002 during which he committed the following offences –

(i) one charge of attempted break and enter with intent to commit larceny;

(ii) one charge of breaking and entering with intent to steal;

(ii) four charges of disposing of stolen property;

(iii) two charges of break, enter and steal;

(iv) thirteen charges of aggravated break, enter 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 R v Arnold

Details

AGLC: R v Arnold [2004] NSWCCA 294
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 294
Decision Date: 30 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Arnold was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The appellant, Arnold, appealed against his sentence for a series of serious offences, arguing that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider his history of mental disturbance and the impact this had on his culpability and sentence. The Crown argued that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had given due consideration to all relevant factors.

The court was required to consider the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant's history of mental disturbance in the sentencing process. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the trial judge had erred in failing to adequately account for the appellant's mental health issues in determining the appropriate sentence, and whether the sentence should be adjusted to reflect the impact of the accumulation of offences on the overall sentence.

The court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the appellant's history of mental disturbance and the impact this had on his culpability and sentence. The court held that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the appellant's mental health issues in determining the appropriate sentence, and that the sentence should be adjusted to reflect the impact of the accumulation of offences on the overall sentence. The court noted that the accumulation of offences had a significant impact on the overall sentence, and that the sentence needed to be adjusted to demonstrate this. The court accordingly varied the sentence to reflect the appropriate discount for the accumulation of offences.

The court varied the sentence to reflect the appropriate discount for the accumulation of offences, and to adequately account for the appellant's history of mental disturbance. The specific details of the sentence variation are not provided in the text.

Orders