R v Bereyne - [2003] NSWCCA 153

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Bereyne [2003] NSWCCA 153

FILE NUMBER(S):
60155/2001

HEARING DATE(S): 12 August 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 06/06/2003

PARTIES:
Crown
Michael James Bereyne (applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/21/2022

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Luland DCJ

COUNSEL:
DC Frearson - Crown
Mr M Rumore (solicitor) - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor - Crown
Mr M Rumore - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW: Application for leave to appeal against sentence
armed robberies and other offences
no question of principle.

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave granted, appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60155/01
HIDDEN J
ADAMS J
Friday 6 June 2003

REGINA v Michael James BEREYNE

Judgment

HIDDEN J: The applicant, Michael James Bereyne, pleaded guilty in the District Court before the late Judge Luland to three charges of armed robbery. He also asked that a number of other offences be taken into account on two Form 1 documents. On the first of those documents there were seven further charges of armed robbery and three of stealing motor vehicles. On the second there were two further charges of armed robbery, two further charges of stealing motor vehicles, two charges of stealing, a charge of possessing car breaking implements and two traffic offences. It is unnecessary to set out the sentences on each of the three counts and the manner in which they were structured. It is sufficient to say that the effective overall sentence was imprisonment for twelve years with a non-parole period of eight years. He seeks leave to appeal against those sentences.
When the appeal was first listed before us the applicant was unrepresented. We adjourned the matter because he believed that he might be able to arrange representation by Mr Mark Rumore, solicitor, who had acted for him previously. On the adjourned date Mr Rumore appeared, we understand, without fee. We are grateful for his assistance.
For the purpose of the application there is no need to recite the facts of the offences. It is sufficient to say that they were committed between mid- December 1999 and the end of April 2000. For some of the armed robberies the applicant used a blood stained syringe, for others a knife. Several of the robberies were committed while he was on bail for another of them. He had a criminal record, primarily for offences of dishonesty, and had previously served terms of imprisonment. However, none of his previous convictions were for offences as serious as the armed robberies the subject of the present application.
The applicant was twenty-three years old at the time of the offences and is now twenty-six. He had a very disturbed background, detailed in a psychological report which was before his Honour. His schooling was limited and his criminal behaviour can be attributed to his abuse of drugs, which began in his early teens. The psychologist noted that, during his period in custody awaiting sentence, he had become involved in…

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 Bereyne

Details

AGLC: R v Bereyne [2003] NSWCCA 153
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 153
Decision Date: 6 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bereyne, the respondent, Bereyne, was convicted in the Supreme Court of Queensland for multiple armed robberies and other related offences. Bereyne appealed against the severity of the sentences imposed, and subsequently applied for leave to appeal against the sentence to the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The court was tasked with determining whether the appeal against sentence raised a question of principle or practice that warranted the granting of leave to appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and if so, whether it raised a question of principle or practice warranting leave to appeal. The court considered the severity of the offences, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court also examined whether the sentence was within the range of sentences that could reasonably be imposed for the offences committed.

The court found that the sentence imposed on Bereyne was within the range of sentences that could reasonably be imposed for the nature and circumstances of the offences committed. The court emphasised that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and did not raise any question of principle or practice that warranted leave to appeal. The court concluded that the appeal against sentence did not meet the threshold for granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.

Orders