Stein JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 2; Studdert J at 59
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
00/31/0319; 00/31/0252
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Kirkham DCJ
COUNSEL :
R D Cogswell SC with Ms Baker (Crown) S.J. Odgers SC P.J. Hamill
SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor Kremmler Townsend Egan Murphy
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeals - break, enter and steal - armed robbery with a dangerous weapon - appeal against leniency of sentence - subjective circumstances - most exceptional circumstances - rehabilitation - two step process of sentencing - whether suspended sentence appropriate
Regina v Jesse Graeme BLACKMAN and Clinton John WALTERS
The respondent, Blackman, pleaded guilty to one count of accessory before the fact of break, enter and steal; one count of accessory after the fact of break, enter and steal, and one count of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon. He was ordered to enter a good behaviour bond for a period of four years for counts 1 and 2. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment (suspended) for the armed robbery offence.
The respondent, Walters, pleaded guilty to one count of break, enter and steal and one count of armed robbery with a dangerous weapon. He was similarly ordered to enter into a good behaviour bond for the offence of break, enter and steal and was given a suspended sentence of two years for the armed robbery offence on the same terms as Blackman.
The Crown appeals against the sentences imposed on the grounds that (1) the sentences were manifestly lenient; (2) the sentencing Judge erred in “eliding” the two steps involved in ordering that the sentence for the armed robbery offence be suspended; (3) the objective criminality involved was such that the sentence for armed robbery should not have been suspended.
HELD (Appeal dismissed):
Ground 1: sentences passed were manifestly lenient
The imposition of a non-custodial sentence for armed robbery is justifiable only where exceptional circumstances are shown. In each case there were powerful subjective circumstances and the sentencing Judge was entitled to find that the position of each respondent was wholly exceptional. The respondents were very much junior partners in the exercise and their complicity was attributable to their immaturity at the time of the offence. Moreover, each had achieved a remarkable level of rehabilitation. There was every reason to suppose that to send them to gaol would have been more likely to turn them towards a criminal way of life, than…
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 Blackman and Walters
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Blackman and Walters [2001] NSWCCA 121
Case
[2001] NSWCCA 121
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Blackman and Walters was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the defendants were convicted for their involvement in an armed robbery. The crime involved the use of a dangerous weapon, leading to a severe charge. Both defendants subsequently appealed against the leniency of their sentences, arguing that their personal circumstances warranted a more lenient outcome. They contended that their rehabilitation efforts and other subjective factors made their case particularly exceptional.
The court was required to determine whether the defendants' personal circumstances and rehabilitation efforts were indeed so exceptional as to warrant a departure from the normal sentencing guidelines. The legal issues centred around the appropriate application of the two-step process in sentencing, which involves considering both the seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court had to weigh the defendants' arguments against the objective of maintaining the integrity of the sentencing process and ensuring that sentences reflect the gravity of the crime.
In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the defendants' efforts towards rehabilitation and their personal circumstances but ultimately found that these factors, while significant, did not constitute the "most exceptional circumstances" necessary to justify a departure from the usual sentencing approach. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining consistency in sentencing to uphold public confidence in the justice system. It concluded that the sentences imposed were appropriate and did not warrant a suspended sentence. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to balance individual circumstances with the overarching principles of justice and deterrence.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal against the leniency of the sentences was dismissed. The defendants were to serve the sentences as originally imposed.