R v Budd - [2002] NSWCCA 302

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Budd [2002] NSWCCA 302

FILE NUMBER(S):
60393/01

HEARING DATE(S): 20 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/08/2002

PARTIES:
Regina v Stuart James Budd

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J Carruthers AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/11/0012

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: His Honour Judge Kinchington QC

COUNSEL:
Applicant - C.B. Craigie SC
Crown - P. Ingram

SOLICITORS:
Applicant - D.J. Humphreys
Crown - S.E. O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
Sentencing
appeal against alleged excessive sentences
one count of armed robbery with wounding
thirteen counts of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon
one count of assault with intent to rob
sundry offences on two Forms 1
consideration of whether sentences imposed exceeded the sentencing discretion available

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900, s97(1) s98

DECISION:
Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed. Head sentence on count 13 reduced to ten years imprisonment to date from 19 April 2003 and expire on 18 April 2013. Non-parole period on count 13 reduced to five years and six months to date from 19 April 2003 and expire on 18 October 2008. All other sentences confirmed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60393/01
DUNFORD J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Wednesday, 14 AUGUST 2002

R v Stuart James BUDD

Judgment

DUNFORD J: I agree with Carruthers AJ.
CARRUTHERS AJ: Stuart James Budd seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Kinchington QC at the Sydney District Court on 21 June 2001.
His Honour sentenced the applicant in relation to one count of armed robbery with wounding pursuant to s 98 of the Crimes Act 1900 (the Act) (count 13) which carries a maximum penalty of twenty-five years imprisonment; thirteen counts of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon pursuant to s 97(1) of the Act (counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15), which also carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment; one count of assault with intent to rob whilst armed, pursuant to s 97(1) of the Act (count 9), which carries a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment. His Honour was also asked to take into account a further ten charges of robbery whilst armed, assault with intent to rob, and attempted robbery whilst armed on two Forms 1.
The various charges, dates of offences, brief facts, and sentences, including sentence commencement dates were helpfully set out in a table which was prepared by counsel for the applicant. That table, which I gratefully adopt (with one necessary amendment) is set out below:

Charge
No

Date of

Offence

Facts

Sentence

Commencement
of Sentence

26.9.99

Applicant entered Island Food Store at Newtown and produced a “Stanley Knife” to the attendant, ordered the till to be opened and removed $75.

4 years
fixed term

19.4.2000

7.11.99

Applicant returned to same store as above, the same attendant tried to run from the store, was intercepted by applicant who produced a “Stanley Knife” and ordered her to the…

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 Budd

Details

AGLC: R v Budd [2002] NSWCCA 302
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 302
Decision Date: 14 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Budd, the appellant sought to challenge the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that it was excessive. The appellant was convicted of one count of armed robbery with wounding, thirteen counts of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon, one count of assault with intent to rob, and sundry offences on two Forms 1. The appellant claimed that the sentences imposed on him were disproportionate and should be reviewed by the court. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether they exceeded the sentencing discretion available.

The court considered the severity and nature of the crimes committed, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing outlined in the relevant legislation. The court also examined the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge and compared them with the range of sentences that could have been imposed for the offences in question. The court concluded that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and did not exceed the sentencing discretion available. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised their discretion appropriately in imposing the sentences.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence, confirming the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge. The court held that the appellant's criminal history and the nature and circumstances of the offences warranted the sentences imposed. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and the need to protect the community. The appellant's appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

Orders