R v Atkinson - [2001] NSWCCA 135

CITATION: Regina v Atkinson [2001] NSWCCA 135

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60555/99

HEARING DATE(S): 28 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
28 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Steven Miimetua Atkinson

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 34; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/2122

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Goldring DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) J S Andrews
(R) C K Maxwell QC

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

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - parity - special circumstances - intellectual and living disabilities - prospects of rehabilitation - allowance for plea of guilty

LEGISLATION CITED: Nil

CASES CITED:
Nil

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted - Appeal allowed - sentence quashed. In lieu of the sentence imposed the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years three months commencing on 20 April 1999 with a non-parole period of two years commencing on that day and ending on 19 April 2001.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60555/99

G JAMES J

SMART AJ

Wednesday 28 March 2001

REGINA v STEVEN MIIMETUA ATKINSON

JUDGMENT

1 SMART AJ : Steven Miimetua Atkinson seeks leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence comprising a minimum term of two years nine months and an additional term of three years. The offence was that on 20 April 1999 at Liverpool he robbed the victim of $100 while being in company with Miha Misi and William Atkinson. The judge correctly stated the charge. The original charge included the words "whilst being armed with a knife" but these words were struck out.

2 In recounting the facts the judge stated that Misi was armed with a black coloured imitation pistol and the applicant with a silver bladed serrated edged knife. The charge did not include robbery whilst armed.

3 About 10.20 pm on 20 April 1999 the victim and a friend were at the National Australia Bank ATM on the corner of Macquarie and Scott Streets Liverpool. The victim had just withdrawn $100 when Misi and the applicant approached him from behind. Misi aimed the pistol at the victim and demanded that he hand over the money. The victim did so. Misi demanded that the victim withdraw more money. Before he could do so Misi and Atkinson ran to a red Ford Laser car nearby and they were driven off by William Atkinson. The registration number was taken.

4 At about 12.30 am on 21 April 1999 a girl and the two Atkinson brothers were stopped in the red Laser sedan at Warwick Farm. During a search of the car two black beanies and a silver bladed serrated edged knife were located. This provided a useful evidentiary link. About 3.20 am the police went to the premises in Warwick Farm where Misi and Atkinson were living. They found some clothing as described by the victim and a black imitation pistol. These were further evidentiary links.

5 In his recorded interview the applicant stated that he went to the automatic…

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 Atkinson

Details

AGLC: R v Atkinson [2001] NSWCCA 135
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 135
Decision Date: 28 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the sentencing of a respondent, Atkinson, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Atkinson was convicted of a serious crime, and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence. Atkinson's case was complicated by his intellectual and living disabilities, which were considered during sentencing. The respondent had pleaded guilty, and the court was required to weigh this plea against the severity of the crime.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing should reflect the special circumstances of Atkinson's disabilities, the impact of these disabilities on his prospects of rehabilitation, and the appropriate weight to give to Atkinson's plea of guilty. The court had to balance these considerations with the need to ensure that the sentence was commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the respondent's disabilities and the impact they had on his prospects for rehabilitation. The court recognised that Atkinson's plea of guilty should be given due weight, but it also emphasised the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the crime committed. The court determined that a sentence that took into account Atkinson's disabilities and the plea of guilty, while still addressing the gravity of the offence, was appropriate. The court ultimately decided on a sentence that was less severe than a standard penalty for the crime, reflecting the special circumstances and the plea of guilty.

The court made orders for the respondent to be sentenced accordingly, taking into consideration the factors outlined in the judgment. The precise details of the sentence were not specified in the text, but the court's approach and reasoning were clearly articulated.

Orders