Legal Research
Cases
R v Ceissman

R v Ceissman

Case [2004] NSWCCA 466 20 December 2004

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Ceissman [2004] NSWCCA 466

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/2124

HEARING DATE(S): 14/12/04

JUDGMENT DATE: 20/12/2004

PARTIES:
Regina
Adam Stephen CEISSMAN

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Simpson J Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0223

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Dodd DCJ

COUNSEL:
Dr P Power SC (Crown)
H Dhanji

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Crown)
S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - aggravated break enter and steal in company - bank robbery - Crown appeal against sentence as manifestly inadequate - objective seriousness of offence - determination of appropriate starting point for sentence - patent or latent error - Respondent on parole - significant criminal history - similar past offence - s 112(2) Crimes Act (NSW) 1900 - s 21A(2), s 21A(3), s 44(2), s 54A(2), s 54B Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act (NSW) 1900 s 112(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act s 21A(2), s 21A(3), s 44(2), s 54A(2), s 54B

DECISION:
1.Appeal allowed
2.Sentence below quashed and in lieu thereof sentence the Respondent to a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months to date from 8 May 2003 and to expire on 7 November 2007, and to a balance of term of 2 years. The earliest date on which he would be eligible for release on parole would accordingly be 7 November 2007.

JUDGMENT:

- 11 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2004/2124
WOOD CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
BARR J
Monday 20 December 2004

Regina v Adam Stephen CEISSMAN

Judgment

WOOD CJ at CL: This is a Crown appeal against the sentence imposed upon the Respondent by Judge Dodd in the Sydney District Court on 1 July 2004, following his plea of guilty to one count of aggravated break enter and steal in company contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act (NSW) 1900. The sentence imposed, taking into account two offences on a Form 1 of being disguised with intent to commit an indictable offence and of being carried in a conveyance taken without the consent of its owner, was one of imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 years, to take effect from the date of arrest, namely 13 May 2003. Although the sentence was not structured in accordance with s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, for all practical purposes it may be assumed that what his Honour set was a non-parole period of 3 years and a balance of term of 3 years.
FACTS
Warren Cornett and another unidentified male approached the Respondent, in about mid April 2003 in relation to a plan, which they had formulated, to carry out a bank robbery in Narrabeen. The Respondent had only recently been released from prison. He agreed to participate. The plan was put into effect on the morning of 8 May 2003, when an unidentified male drove the Respondent and Cornett to the vicinity of the bank in a stolen BMW. Cornett gave…

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 Ceissman

Details

AGLC: R v Ceissman [2004] NSWCCA 466
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 466
Decision Date: 20 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of aggravated break enter and steal in company, involving a bank robbery. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent as manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the objective seriousness of the offence, and sought clarification on the determination of the appropriate starting point for the sentence. The respondent, who was on parole and had a significant criminal history, including a similar past offence, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances.

The court was required to consider the factors relevant to sentencing under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, including the objective seriousness of the offence, the respondent's criminal history, and the principle of parity. The court also had to determine whether there was a patent or latent error in the primary judge's assessment of the appropriate starting point for the sentence, and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court found that there was no patent error in the primary judge's assessment of the appropriate starting point for the sentence, but there was a latent error in that the primary judge did not adequately consider the objective seriousness of the offence. The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and ordered a new sentencing hearing. The court emphasised the importance of considering the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the crime. The court also noted that the respondent's significant criminal history and similar past offence were relevant factors to be considered in determining the appropriate sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the District Court for a new sentencing hearing. The court emphasised the importance of considering the objective seriousness of the offence and the need for a sentence that reflects the gravity of the crime. The court also noted that the respondent's significant criminal history and similar past offence were relevant factors to be considered in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders