Legal Research
Cases
R v Chandler

R v Chandler

Case [2019] NSWCCA 250 21 October 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Chandler [2019] NSWCCA 250
Hearing dates: 30 September 2019
Decision date: 21 October 2019
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Brereton JA at [77];
Cavanagh J at [83]
Decision:
(1)   Crown appeal allowed.
(2)   The sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Bourke SC at the Parramatta District Court on 30 May 2019 in respect of the respondent is quashed.
(3)   In lieu thereof, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months, commencing 18 June 2018 and expiring 17 February 2021, with a balance of term of 1 year and 10 months expiring 17 December 2022.
(4)   The respondent will be eligible for parole on 17 February 2021.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal on sentence – robbery armed with an offensive weapon – three matters to be taken into account on a Form 1 – two offences placed on a s 166 Certificate – non-parole period 41 per cent of head sentence – significant backdating of sentence – whether sentence unreasonable or plainly unjust – whether sentencing principles properly applied – failure to explain reasons for lenience – Crown appeal allowed.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – ss 97(1), 192E(1)(a), 195(1)(a)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) – s 166
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 10A, 44(2), 44(2B), 47(3), 47(4)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5D
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518; 56 NSWLR 146
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Callaghan v R [2006] NSWCCA 58; 160 A Crim R 145
Caristo v R [2011] NSWCCA 7
CMB v Attorney General (NSW) [2015] HCA 9; 256 CLR 346
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Everett v The Queen [1994] HCA 49; 181 CLR 295
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Griffiths v The Queen [1977] HCA 44; 137 CLR 293
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Mulato v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 282
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Power v The Queen [1974] HCA 26; 131 CLR 623
R v Barker [2016] NSWCCA 193
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81
Regina v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534; 53 NSWLR 704
Regina v Henry Barber Tran Silver Tsoukatos Kyroglou Jenkins [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
Thach v R [2018] NSWCCA 252
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina – Applicant Crown
Corey Chandler – Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:
M Cinque SC – Applicant Crown
T Anderson – Respondent

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 [2019] NSWCCA 250
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 250
Decision Date: 21 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chandler involved the respondent, who had been convicted of multiple offences including robbery armed with an offensive weapon. The prosecution sought an appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal. The appeal court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust, whether the sentencing principles were properly applied, and whether the trial judge failed to adequately explain the reasons for the leniency of the sentence.

The legal issues before the court centred on the principles of sentencing and the appropriate application of these principles in the context of the respondent's criminal history and the specific circumstances of the offences. The court had to consider the totality of the sentence, the significance of the non-parole period, and the trial judge's explanation of the reasons for the sentence imposed. The court also examined whether the sentence was influenced by inappropriate considerations or whether it reflected a clear error in the application of the sentencing principles.

The court of appeal found that the sentence imposed was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The non-parole period of 41 per cent of the head sentence was considered excessive given the nature of the offences and the respondent's criminal history. The court highlighted that the trial judge did not adequately explain the reasons for the leniency of the sentence, which was a significant failing. The court concluded that the sentencing principles were not properly applied, and the appeal was allowed on the basis that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust.

The court of appeal quashed the sentence and ordered a re-sentencing hearing. The respondent was to be re-sentenced by a different judge, taking into account the appropriate sentencing principles and ensuring that the reasons for the sentence imposed were clearly articulated. The court emphasised the importance of transparency and accountability in the sentencing process, and the need for judges to provide adequate explanations for their sentencing decisions.

Orders