DECISION: 1. Appeal allowed 2. The sentences imposed by Nield DCJ on 17 May 2006 are quashed 3. On Count 1 on the indictment, taking into account the offence on the Form One, a non parole period of one year is imposed to date from 15 August 2005, expiring 14 August 2006, with a balance of term of one year, expiring 14 August 2007 4. On Count 2 on the indictment, taking into account the offence on the Form One, a non parole period of 18 months is imposed to date from 15 February 2006, expiring 14 August 2007, with a balance of term of 12 months, expiring 14 August 2008 5. On Count 3 on the indictment, a fixed term of 7 months imprisonment is imposed to date from 15 June 2006, expiring 14 January 2007. The respondent is eligible for release at the expiration of the non parole period in respect of Count 2.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
2006/1599
HUNT AJA JOHNSON J LATHAM J
22 SEPTEMBER 2006
REGINA v DEAN CAGE
Judgment
HUNT AJA : I agree with the orders proposed by Latham J and with the reasons she has given.
JOHNSON J : I agree with Latham J.
LATHAM J : On 6 July 2006, the Director of Public Prosecutions lodged an appeal against sentences imposed by his Honour Judge Nield at Gosford District Court on 17 May 2006, on the ground that the sentence is manifestly inadequate.
The respondent pleaded guilty to three offences on indictment, namely one of Demand Money with Menaces carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, one of Demand Money with Menaces in Company carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and one of Common Assault carrying a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. An offence of common assault on a Form One was taken into account in relation to the sentence imposed on the first count and an offence of malicious damage on a separate Form One was taken into account in relation to the sentence imposed on the second count.
The respondent received a non parole period of nine months, with a balance of term of three months in relation to Count 1, a non parole period of six months with a balance of term of nine months in relation to Count 2 and a non parole period of five…
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 Cage
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Cage [2006] NSWCCA 304
Case
[2006] NSWCCA 304
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Cage involved the appellant, Cage, who had been convicted on multiple charges including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and common assault. The Crown appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it was unduly lenient given the nature of the offences. The Court of Appeal in Queensland was tasked with reviewing the sentence and determining whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the objective gravity of the offences or had unduly emphasised the theoretical possibility of summary disposition.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had failed to appropriately assess the seriousness of the offences or had placed undue weight on the hypothetical availability of summary disposition. The Crown argued that the trial judge had not adequately considered the gravity of the assaults, particularly given the physical harm caused to the victims. The defence, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and that the trial judge had correctly considered all relevant factors, including the theoretical possibility of dealing with the matter summarily.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had indeed erred in not fully assessing the objective gravity of the offences. The court held that the trial judge had unduly emphasised the theoretical availability of summary disposition and had not sufficiently considered the actual harm caused to the victims. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing. The Court of Appeal emphasised that a proper assessment of the gravity of the offences and the harm caused was critical in determining an appropriate sentence.