Legal Research
Cases
R v Chandler

R v Chandler

Case [2014] NSWDC 389 5 December 2014

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v CHANDLER [2014] NSWDC 389
Hearing dates: 7 November 2014
Date of orders: 05 December 2014
Decision date: 05 December 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Convicted: Sentence to a term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – Sentence, armed robbery, historical offence, DNA evidence, offending occurring between two other offences for which the prisoner is already sentenced, totality of sentence, taking into account time already served in custody.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 16
R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135
R v Hammoud [2000] 118 A Crim R 66
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v MMK [2006] 164 Crim R 481
R v Z [2006] NSWCCA 342
The Queen v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283
Veen (No.2) v The Queen [1988] HCA 14
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina
Benjamin Chandler - Offender
Representation: Counsel:
Ms S Herbert – Crown
Dr J Berwick - Offender

File Number(s): 2012/289299

Sentence

HIS HONOUR: Benjamin Chandler appears today for sentence, having been found guilty by a jury of a charge alleging that he, on 5 April 2009, at Randwick, robbed Guyan Thambugala of his personal property whilst armed with an offensive weapon and at the time of the robbery he wounded that person. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. There is a standard non parole period of seven years prescribed, pursuant to the relevant provision in Pt 4, Div 1A, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. Of course the maximum penalty for the offence is prescribed in the Crimes Act.
The prisoner was charged in relation to this matter a number of years after the crime was committed, having been identified by the use up to date or DNA technology after a “cold hit” had occurred upon re examination of exhibits relating to the case. Particularly the knife that was clearly used in the attack or the stabbing of the victim.
The prisoner at the time of the match being recorded was already in custody, serving terms of imprisonment in respect of offences committed by the prisoner over a period of time, between 22 March 2009 and 17 April 2009, the details of which I will refer to in a moment. The prisoner had in fact been arrested and placed in custody on 22 April 2009 in respect of a number offences, including some of the offences for which he was subsequently sentenced. Ultimately, when he finally was sentenced at the Local Court and, more particularly at the District…

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 Chandler

Details

AGLC: R v Chandler [2014] NSWDC 389
Case: [2014] NSWDC 389
Decision Date: 05 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Chandler, the accused was convicted of armed robbery and faced sentencing before the court. The offence occurred in a historical context, with the crime taking place amidst other criminal activities for which the accused was already serving a sentence. The prosecution relied heavily on DNA evidence to secure the conviction. The central issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for this armed robbery conviction, while considering the totality principle in light of the accused's prior convictions and the time already served.

The court had to weigh several factors in its sentencing decision. These included the gravity of the current offence, the historical nature of the crime, the reliability of the DNA evidence, and the necessity to avoid excessive cumulative sentences due to the accused's other ongoing sentences. The court also needed to consider the principle of totality, which seeks to ensure that the overall punishment is proportionate to the criminal conduct and does not unduly extend the period of incarceration beyond what is justified.

In its reasoning, the court recognised the seriousness of the armed robbery and the reliability of the DNA evidence in securing the conviction. However, it also took into account the principle of totality and the time the accused had already spent in custody. Balancing these factors, the court sentenced the accused to a term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months. This sentence reflects the court's consideration of the totality principle while acknowledging the severity of the armed robbery.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted: Sentence to a term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Chandler [2014] NSWDC 389

Most Recent Citation

Fisher v R; R v Fisher [2021] NSWCCA 91

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

Fisher v R; R v Fisher
[2021] NSWCCA 91 Para 34

…ent of specific error, although identification of specific error may assist to explain why a sentence is manifestly inadequate. [16] 15. R v Chandler (2019) 101 NSWLR 208 at 218 [47] (Hoeben CJ at CL; Brereton JA and Cavanagh J agreeing); [2019] NSWCCA 250, citing Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 at 325-326 [6]…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 12 of 12 shown

R v Martin
[2014] NSWCCA 283 Para 63

…tality and criminality, noting all that has been put by the parties. I note the recent decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in The Queen v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283, decided on 2 September 2014. The judgment reflects upon a number of authorities well known to those involved in the criminal law. I particularly not…
R v Chandler; Chandler v R
[2012] NSWCCA 135 Para 9

…the Crown against inadequacy of sentences, that judgment being decided by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 28 June 2012, ( R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135), at the time of being sentenced by the sentencing Judge there were other offences. I assume related offences for which the prisoner was sentenced, i…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 42

…v Z , a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal from 2006 and, of course very importantly, the judgment of the High Court in Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39, various principles, relating to the sentencing of offenders suffering from what McClellan CJ at CL referred to in De La Rosa as “mental illness, intel…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 39

…ent of Sperling J, and more recently, if I might refer to the decision published subsequent to his Honour’s sentencing exercise of DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194, particularly at [177] – [178], where a larger number of authorities and other matters are summarised by the then learned Chief Judge at Common Law…
Cahyadi v R
[2007] NSWCCA 1 Para 63

…es well known to those involved in the criminal law. I particularly note the contents of para [24], particularly the passage from Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1, particularly at [27] - [28] where Howie J surveyed a number of principles arising from a number of cases, such as Holder v The Queen , the decision…
R v Z
[2006] NSWCCA 342

…[2000] 118 A Crim R 66 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v MMK [2006] 164 Crim R 481 R v Z [2006] NSWCCA 342 The Queen v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 Veen (No.2) v The Queen [1988] HCA 14 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Benjamin Chandler - Offender Representati…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25

…Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Cases Cited: Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 16 R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135 R v Hammoud [2000] 118 A Crim R 66…
R v Hemsley
[2004] NSWCCA 228 Para 39

…He concluded, in the context of principles that are summarised in decisions such as R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 at [33] - [36], in the judgment of Sperling J, and more recently, if I might refer to the decision published subsequent to his Honour’s sentencing exercise of DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194, particul…
R v Israil
[2002] NSWCCA 255

…Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135 R v Hammoud [2000] 118 A Crim R 66 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v MMK [2006] 164 Crim R 481 R v Z [2006] NSWCCA 342 The Queen v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 Veen (No.2) v The Queen [1988] HCA 14 Category: Sentence Par…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111

…The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 16 R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135 R v Hammoud [2000] 118 A Crim R 66 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v MMK [2006] 164 Crim R 481 R v Z [2006] NSWCCA 342 The Queen v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 Veen (No.2) v The Queen [1988]…
Pearce v The Queen
[1998] HCA 57 Para 58

…In submissions I was taken to ‘Pearce principles’ ( Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 16, at [45]). It was submitted that there was substantial mental impairment, as has been accepted by the Court of Criminal Appeal. It was conceded that the offence with which I am concerned was the most serious both in terms of max…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14

…346 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v MMK [2006] 164 Crim R 481 R v Z [2006] NSWCCA 342 The Queen v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 Veen (No.2) v The Queen [1988] HCA 14 Category: Sentence Parties: Regina Benjamin Chandler - Offender Representation: Counsel: Ms S Herbert – Crown Dr J Berwick - Offender File Number(s): 2…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v CHANDLER [2014] NSWDC 389
Hearing dates:	7 November 2014
Date of orders:	05 December 2014
Decision date:	05 December 2014
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Convicted: Sentence to a term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 3 months.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL – Sentence, armed robbery, historical offence, DNA evidence, offending occurring between two other offences for which the prisoner is already sentenced, totality of sentence, taking into account time already served in custody.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited:	Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25 Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 16 R v Chandler; Chandler v R [2012] NSWCCA 135 R v Hammoud [2000] 118 A Crim R 66 R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255 R v MMK [2006] 164 Crim R 481 R v Z [2006] NSWCCA 342 The Queen v Martin [2014] NSWCCA 283 Veen (No.2) v The Queen [1988] HCA 14
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina Benjamin Chandler - Offender
Representation:	Counsel: Ms S Herbert – Crown Dr J Berwick - Offender
File Number(s):	2012/289299