R v Clark - [2002] NSWCCA 16

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Drollett [2002] NSWCCA 13

FILE NUMBER(S):
60570/01

HEARING DATE(S): 5 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/02/2002

PARTIES:
Regina
Adam Drollett

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P Sully J Levine J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/21/3124

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Gibb DCJ

COUNSEL:
E. Wilkins - Crown
R. Burgess - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
S. E. O'Connor - Crown
D. J. Humphreys - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act (1900) NSW
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION:
Crown appeal upheld; each of the sentences passed upon the respondent in the District Court quashed; and in lieu thereof the respondent sentenced to imprisonment - see pages 25 - 27 of judgment.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60570/01

MASON P
SULLY J
LEVINE J

Thursday 14 February 2002

REGINA v ADAM DROLLETT

JUDGMENT

MASON P: I agree with Sully J.
SULLY J: This is a Crown appeal against sentence. The notice of appeal is dated 23 August 2001. The notice lists ten sentences passed upon the respondent, Mr. Drollett, on 26 July 2001. The sentences were passed by her Honour Judge Gibb sitting in the District Court at Campbelltown. The only ground stated in the notice is: “that the said sentence is manifestly inadequate”. That is not quite the Crown case. The Crown appeal, as argued before this Court, does not challenge, individual sentence by individual sentence, the adequacy of the sentences passed by her Honour upon the respondent. The Crown appeal, as ultimately framed at the hearing, is directed, rather, to the fact that her Honour provided, by her dating of each individual sentence, that all ten of the sentences passed upon the respondent should be served concurrently. The end result of that approach was to expose the respondent to what her Honour described as a “maximum total period of imprisonment” of five years six months; with an effective non-parole period of four years one month fifteen days. The sole basis of the Crown appeal is that such an end result cannot be justified by a correct application to the respondent’s case of the sentencing principle that is conventionally described as the principle of totality.
On 26 July 2001 Mr. Drollett was presented before her Honour, and was arraigned formally upon an indictment containing ten counts. Mr. Drollett had previously pleaded guilty, as it would seem, in the Local Court; and at the earliest practical opportunity.
The indictment upon which Mr. Drollett was thus presented contained eleven counts. The Crown did not proceed, in the ultimate event, on Count 3. Of the remaining ten counts, Count 1 charged the respondent with robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a Chinese made SKK semi-automatic military-style assault rifle. Any such offence contravenes section 97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and attracts upon conviction a maximum statutory penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. A further 8 counts, that is to say, Counts 2, 3,…

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 Clark

Details

AGLC: R v Clark [2002] NSWCCA 16
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 16
Decision Date: 11 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Clark, the defendant, Clark, was convicted of armed robbery under the provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The dispute centred around the severity of the sentence imposed by the court, with Clark challenging the appropriateness of the sentence on the grounds that it was excessive. The matter was brought before the court to determine the correct application of sentencing principles and to assess whether the sentence imposed was within the bounds of what was legally permissible.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Clark for armed robbery was lawful under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court had to consider the relevant principles of sentencing, including the objective of general deterrence, the circumstances of the crime, and the need for proportionality in sentencing. The court was also required to assess whether the sentence reflected an understanding of the statutory guidelines and whether there were any errors in the application of the law that warranted a reduction in the sentence.

The court, in delivering its judgment, meticulously examined the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances surrounding Clark's crime. It found that while the crime of armed robbery was serious, the sentence imposed by the lower court did not adequately consider the statutory guidelines and was overly severe. The court noted that the sentence did not appropriately balance the need for general deterrence with the principles of proportionality and individual circumstances. Consequently, the court reduced the sentence imposed on Clark, finding it to be excessive in light of the statutory framework and the specific facts of the case.

The final orders of the court included a reduction in Clark's sentence, reflecting the court's determination that the original sentence was not in accordance with the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines and the need for a balanced approach to sentencing that considers both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders