R v Centofanti & Schaeffer - [2001] NSWCCA 107

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v Centofanti & Schaeffer [2001] NSWCCA 107

FILE NUMBER(S):
60186/90 (Centofanti)
60190/00 (Schaeffer)

HEARING DATE(S): 26 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 26/03/2001

PARTIES:
Regina v Peter Karl Centofanti & Douglas Allen Schaeffer

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/71/0005

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL:
C Lyons (Centofanti)
R Burgess (Schaeffer)
P Berman (Crown)

SOLICITORS:
D J Humphreys (Centofanti)
David Giddy & Associates (Schaeffer)
S E O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS:
Sentencing - armed robbery of the most serious kind - parity and the principle of totality

LEGISLATION CITED:
Nil

DECISION:
Schaeffer - Leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal dismissed
Centofanti - Leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed; sentence quashed. In lieu of the sentence imposed upon Centofanti he is sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years commencing 30 November 1999 with a non-parole period of 3 years commencing on that date and ending 29 November 2002.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60186/00
60190/00

GREG JAMES J
SMART AJ
Monday, 26 March 2001

REGINA v PETER KARL CENTOFANTI
REGINA v DOUGLAS ALLEN SCHAEFFER

JUDGMENT

1      SMART AJ: Each of the applicants seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed upon him in the District Court consequent upon pleas of guilty.
2      Schaeffer was sentenced to a fixed term of two years and six months penal servitude for aggravated break and enter with intent being armed with an offensive weapon and a cumulative sentence of seven years comprising a minimum term of four years and an additional term of two years three months for aggravated robbery being armed and in company.
3      Centofanti was sentenced to a minimum term of three years nine months and an additional term of two years three months for aggravated robbery being armed and in company.
4      About 11.30pm on Sunday 12 September 1999 Schaeffer entered the premises at Coro Club, Griffith, by breaking a window at the front of the Club. Schaeffer was a member of the Club. He was dressed in overalls and wore a balaclava and gloves. He was armed with an offensive weapon, possibly a length of wood or pipe. There were no staff members on the Club premises and he was unable to open the safe. Having found no money, he left the premises.
5      Prior to 16 September 1999 Schaeffer had suggested to Centofanti that they rob the Club. Centofanti was initially reluctant. Both men needed money to finance their drug habits. During the evening of 16 September 2000 Schaeffer attended the Club, noting and confirming its features in his mind. He was there for some time and was noticed by E, the bar manager. Schaeffer returned to his caravan. At that time both men lived in caravans in a yard. Upon Schaeffer returning he met up with Centofanti and they agreed that they would rob the Club. Schaeffer gave Centofanti a 12 gauge shotgun,…

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 Centofanti & Schaeffer

Details

AGLC: R v Centofanti & Schaeffer [2001] NSWCCA 107
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 107
Decision Date: 26 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the sentencing of two individuals, Centofanti and Schaeffer, who had been convicted of armed robbery of the most serious kind. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for these offenders. The legal issues at hand centred on the application of the principles of parity and the principle of totality in the sentencing process. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was consistent with the severity of the crime and whether the cumulative effect of the sentences for multiple offences was proportionate.

The court began by examining the principle of parity, which requires that similar crimes be punished in a similar way. It noted that the trial judge had recognised the severity of the offence, but the court found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crime. The court then turned to the principle of totality, which requires that the cumulative effect of sentences for multiple offences be considered to avoid excessive punishment. The court held that the trial judge had not properly applied this principle, leading to an overall sentence that was not proportionate to the offences committed. Consequently, the court determined that the sentences imposed were insufficient and ordered the case to be remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious crimes are commensurate with the harm caused and the culpability of the offenders. It stressed that the principles of parity and totality must be carefully considered to achieve just outcomes in the sentencing process. The court did not specify the exact sentences that should be imposed but made it clear that the re-sentencing must reflect the severity of the armed robbery and comply with the principles discussed.

Orders