R v Crowe - [2002] NSWCCA 245

CITATION: R v Crowe [2002] NSWCCA 245

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60696/01

HEARING DATE(S): 20 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 June 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW)
Matthew Bruce CROWE (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Adams J at 54

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0552

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Dodd DCJ

COUNSEL : PG Ingram (Crown)
PR Boulten (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
Carbone Anderson (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - break, enter & steal - break-in of a city jewellery store - large amount taken.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 112(2)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 44(2)

CASES CITED:
Re Attorney-General's Application (No. 1); R v Pomfield & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 43, 48 NSWLR 327
R v Qutami [2001] NSWCCA 353
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
R v Hayes [2001] NSWCCA 410

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

60696/01

DUNFORD J
ADAMS J
Thursday, 20 JUNE 2002

R v Matthew Bruce CROWE

Judgment

1 Dunford J: This is an application by Matthew Bruce Crowe for leave to appeal against the sentence of imprisonment for 6 years with a non-parole period of 4 years imposed on him by Dodd DCJ in the District Court at Sydney following his plea of guilty on arraignment to a charge of aggravated break, enter and steal contrary to s 112(2) the Crimes Act 1900, which offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.

2 In sentencing the applicant his Honour also took into account a further offence on a Form 1, namely possession of a prohibited drug, to wit a small amount of cannabis.

3 The facts of the matters briefly are that at about 7.30 p.m. on Thursday, 8 February 2001, two men, including the applicant approached the front door of Bvlgari Jewellers at 75 Castlereagh Street, Sydney which store retails mainly expensive watches, necklaces, bracelets and other jewellery. The other man was armed with a sledge hammer and both had their faces disguised by various types of clothing. The front glass door to the store was closed but the co-offender smashed it in with the sledge hammer.

4 They both then entered the store through the smashed door and approached the staff wielding the sledge hammer. The staff then either were in, or ran to, the rear of the store where they locked themselves in the office.

5 The applicant and his co-offender then ransacked the store, stealing numerous jewellery items and damaging a number of display cabinets. They approached the rear door leading to the office which they attempted to force open by kicking it and calling out to the persons inside the office demanding that the staff open the safe.

6 The staff did not open the door and the burglars did not gain access to the office area or the safe. They then attempted to leave the store with the stolen jewellery items valued at approximately $750,000 leaving glass and jewellery strewn over the floor and…

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 Crowe

Details

AGLC: R v Crowe [2002] NSWCCA 245
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 245
Decision Date: 20 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crowe involved the defendant, Crowe, who was charged with breaking and entering a jewellery store in the city and stealing a large sum of money. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of the state, where Crowe contested the charges. The primary dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed if Crowe was found guilty, given the seriousness of the crime and the substantial value of the stolen goods.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the crime of break and enter with the intent to steal, considering the severity of the breach of security and the financial loss incurred by the victim. The court had to weigh various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant’s criminal history, and the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court commenced its analysis by emphasising the gravity of the crime, noting that the break-in was premeditated and involved significant planning, leading to a substantial financial loss for the victim. The court also considered Crowe’s previous criminal record, which included similar offences, indicating a pattern of behaviour. After thoroughly evaluating these factors, the court concluded that the sentence should reflect both the need for general deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation. The court ultimately decided that Crowe should be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, followed by a period of supervision, aimed at addressing the underlying issues that led to the criminal behaviour. The specific details of the sentence, including the length of imprisonment and supervision, were outlined in the final orders of the court.

Orders