R v Ceissman - [2000] NSWCCA 274

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v CEISSMAN [2000] NSWCCA 274

FILE NUMBER(S):
60618/99

HEARING DATE(S): 14 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/07/2000

PARTIES:
Regina v Adam Ceissman

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J Bell J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 98/11/0064

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL:
Mr W G Dawe QC (Crown)
Mr R Hoenig (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor (Crown)
John Bettens & Co (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
Sentence appeal
interstate sentence
how to account for

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted but the appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60618/99

ADAMS J
BELL J
FRIDAY 14 JULY 2000
REGINA v ADAM CEISSMAN

JUDGMENT

ADAMS J: This applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court of New South Wales to charges that were committed in 1995, although he came up for sentence in October 1999. Part of the reason for the delay was that after these offences were committed the applicant was arrested in September 1995 in Queensland for one count of robbery and one count of stealing a motor vehicle and sentenced in November 1996 in Queensland to imprisonment totalling seven years, the non parole period of two years, in respect of robbery and a fixed term of imprisonment of two years in respect of stealing the motor vehicle, the sentences to be served concurrently.
On completion of the non parole period and of the fixed term he was transferred on 25 September 1997 to the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services and from that date commenced to serve the balance of a period of parole, being the balance of a sentence imposed on him in New South Wales in 1994. That period expired on 18 December 1997. He was sentenced for the present offences on 8 October 1999.
The offences in respect to which he pleaded guilty and which are briefly summarised in the learned sentencing judge's reasons for sentence comprised four counts of armed robbery and three counts of stealing a motor vehicle. Two of the armed robberies occurred on 9 March 1995, one other of those offences together with one of the stealing offences occurred on 24 March 1995 and the remaining two armed robberies and stealing motor vehicle was committed on 6 April 1995.
In respect of the first two counts of armed robbery and stealing of the motor vehicle the evidence was that the applicant stole a motor vehicle from the shopping centre where it had been parked and drove it to the Commonwealth Bank at Brighton. He went into a clothing store near the bank, asked the store attendant for a shopping bag, then he and his two co-offenders placed balaclavas over their heads, entered the bank and produced a shortened firearm and demanded money. A gunshot was fired into the roof of the bank after staff activated security shutters. The offender and his two co-offenders left the area in a stolen motor vehicle.
Counts 3 and 4 comprised essentially the same modus…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 274
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 274
Decision Date: 14 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent, Ceissman, against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Ceissman was found guilty of various charges including robbery, deprivation of liberty, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed, particularly in relation to the consideration of an interstate sentence previously imposed on Ceissman. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the legality and appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the lower court had properly considered Ceissman's previous interstate sentence when determining the current sentence, and whether the sentence imposed was excessive or manifestly inadequate. The court also needed to consider whether the principles of totality and parity were correctly applied in the sentencing process. This involved examining whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed by different courts was taken into account, and whether the sentences were proportionate to the crimes committed.

The court held that the lower court had not adequately considered the previous interstate sentence in its determination of the current sentence. It was found that the lower court had failed to apply the principles of totality and parity correctly. The High Court emphasised that the totality principle requires a court to consider the total punishment a person will receive if sentenced for multiple offences, while the parity principle requires consistency in sentencing for similar offences across different jurisdictions. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly inadequate, as it did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences committed by Ceissman. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for resentencing.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Western Australia be quashed, and the matter be remitted for resentencing in accordance with the principles of totality and parity. The court did not impose a specific sentence but directed that the resentencing process must properly consider the previous interstate sentence and ensure that the overall punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the offences.

Orders