R v Allpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561 R v Barci & Asling (1994) 76 A Crim R 103 R v Burchell (1987) 34 A Crim R 148 R v Clampitt-Wotton [2002] NSWCCA 383 R v Coleman (1990) 47 A Crim R 306 R v Cooney (Qld Court of Appeal, unrep. 6.3.98) R v Fletcher (1980) 4 Crim LJ 244 R v Genz [1999] NSWCCA 285 R v Gooley (1996) 87 A Crim R 227 R v Haddara (1997) 95 A Crim R 108 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Jadurin (1982) 7 A Crim R 182 R v Minor (1992) 59 A Crim R 227 R v Noble; R v Verheyden (1994) 73 A Crim R 379 R v Wright (No.2) (1968) VR 174 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
PARTIES :
Regina v Jayantha Harold DAETZ; Regina v Kirk Tane WILSON
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 60104/03; 60107/03
COUNSEL:
D Frearson - Crown C Craigie SC/CT Loukas (Applicant Daetz) J Doris (Applicant Wilson)
SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor - Crown C Hunter - (Daetz) GM Meakin - (Wilson)
1 TOBIAS JA: I agree with the judgment of James J.
2 JAMES J: Jayantha Harold Daetz and Kirk Tane Wilson applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on them in the District Court on 13 September 2002 by his Honour Judge Woods QC. With the consent of both applicants and the Crown the two applications for leave to appeal were heard together.
3 On 13 September 2002 his Honour Judge Woods sentenced both applicants for a common offence of robbery in company which they had committed together with each other. His Honour also sentenced each applicant for other offences in respect of which the particular applicant had been the only offender. Each applicant had pleaded guilty to all of the offences for which he was sentenced.
4 The sentences imposed on the applicant Daetz were as follows. For each of two offences of demanding money with menaces with intent to steal, which were both committed on 8 September 2001, his Honour imposed a term of imprisonment of eighteen months commencing on 17 May 2002 with a…
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 Daetz
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Daetz [2003] NSWCCA 216
Case
[2003] NSWCCA 216
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Daetz involved the defendant appealing a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Daetz was convicted of various drug-related offences and received a sentence that included a period of imprisonment. Dissatisfied with the length of his sentence, Daetz appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge had failed to appropriately consider certain mitigating factors and had not adequately discounted his sentence for the time already spent on remand.
The primary legal issues the Court of Appeal had to address were whether the trial judge had erred in failing to consider all relevant mitigating factors, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The appeal also raised questions about the extent to which the trial judge should have discounted the sentence for the period Daetz had already spent on remand before his conviction.
The Court of Appeal determined that the trial judge had indeed failed to consider all relevant mitigating factors and had not appropriately discounted the sentence for time spent on remand. The court held that the trial judge's consideration of mitigating factors was insufficient and that the discount for time already spent in custody was inadequate. Consequently, the Court of Appeal varied the sentence, reducing the period of imprisonment imposed on Daetz. The Court found that the special circumstances of the case warranted a reduced sentence, taking into account both the mitigating factors and the appropriate discount for pre-sentence custody.
The final orders of the Court of Appeal resulted in a reduced sentence for Daetz, reflecting the court's view that the trial judge had not adequately considered the mitigating factors and had not appropriately accounted for the time already spent on remand. The decision underscores the importance of a thorough consideration of all mitigating factors and proper discounting of pre-sentence custody when determining sentences in criminal cases.