Legal Research
Cases
R v Craig John Drew

R v Craig John Drew

Case [2007] NSWCCA 331 3 December 2007

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Concurrence and Accumulation of Custodial Sentences

Totality Principle

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Craig John DREW [2007] NSWCCA 331

HEARING DATE(S): 22 October 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 December 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Hidden J at 2; Harrison J at 3

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence – conviction on several counts of robbery with offensive weapon - concurrence and accumulation of custodial sentences - totality principle – whether similar offences committed over short period of time should attract totally concurrent sentences – whether accumulation of sentences adequately reflect seriousness of crimes – unusual subjective features demonstrated - no miscarriage of sentencing discretion shown – appeal dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Basha [2003] NSWCCA 36; (2003) 138 A Crim R 245
R v Cotter [2003] NSWCCA 273
R v Hammoud [2000] NSWCCA 540; (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Jones [2004] NSWCCA 432
R v KM [2004] NSWCCA 65
R v Swadling [2004] NSWCCA 421
R v Tortell and Tsegay [2007] NSWCCA 313
R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
R v Webster [2005] NSWCCA 110
R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34

PARTIES: Regina (Appellant)
Craig John Drew (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3178

COUNSEL: M M Hobart SC (Appellant)
C A Davenport SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
North and Badgery (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0977

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nicholson DCJ and Charteris DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 8 and 13 December 2006 (dates of sentence)

2007/3178

MASON P
HIDDEN J
HARRISON J
3 December 2007

R v Craig John DREW

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with Harrison J and the additional remarks of Hidden J.

2 HIDDEN J: I agree with the orders proposed by Harrison J and with his Honour’s reasons. It is true that these were serious offences and heavier sentences might well have been justified. Nevertheless, in all the circumstances and, in particular, having regard to the respondent’s rather unusual subjective case, it cannot be said that the discretion of either of the sentencing judges has miscarried.

3 HARRISON J: This is a Crown appeal. The principles governing appeals by the Crown were summarised by Wood CJ at CL in R v Wall [2002] NSWCCA 42 at par [70]. These principles are well known and it is unnecessary for present purposes to recite them.

4 The Crown appeals pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against sentences imposed upon the respondent by his Honour Nicholson DCJ at the Parramatta District Court on 8 December 2006 and by his Honour Charteris DCJ…

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 Craig John Drew

Details

AGLC: R v Craig John Drew [2007] NSWCCA 331
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 331
Decision Date: 3 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Craig John Drew, the appellant was convicted of multiple counts of robbery with an offensive weapon. The Crown appealed against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed, arguing that it did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. The appeal was heard in the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply when multiple similar offences are committed over a short period of time and the adequacy of the sentence in reflecting the seriousness of the crimes. The court considered the totality principle, which requires that the cumulative sentence should be proportionate to the overall criminality of the offender, and the need to ensure that the sentence adequately reflects the gravity of the individual offences.

The court found that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant sentencing principles and had exercised their discretion appropriately. The court held that the appellant's crimes, while serious, did not warrant a total concurrent sentence, as the subjective features of the crimes warranted some accumulation of sentences. The court concluded that the sentence imposed adequately reflected the seriousness of the crimes and that there was no miscarriage of the sentencing discretion. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders altering the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The sentence of imprisonment, with specific non-parole periods, was upheld as appropriate in all the circumstances.

Orders