R v Dickson - [2002] NSWCCA 327

Reported Decision:
(2002) 132 A Crim R 137

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Dickson [2002] NSWCCA 327 revised - 25/09/2002

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60259 of 2002

HEARING DATE(S): 05/08/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Brett Neville Dickson

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1, 27, 29; Simpson J at 25; Howie J at 28

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/3408

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Goldring DCJ

COUNSEL : Appellant: W Dawe QC
Respondent: C Craigie SC & Ms C Loukas

SOLICITORS: Appellant: S E O'Connor
Respondent: N/A

CATCHWORDS: Aggravated robbery occasioning grievous bodily harm - escape lawful custody - whether trial judge failed to comply with the provisions of s 57 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - Pearce v The King - appeal allowed.

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

CASES CITED:
Pearce v The King (1998) 194 CLR at 610

DECISION: 1. Appeal Allowed; 2. Sentence quashed; 3. That Mr Dickson be sentenced to twelve months from 18 October 2001 and a fixed term to expire on 17 October 2002 upon the offence of escape; 4. That Mr Dickson be sentenced to five years imprisonment from 10 October 2002 with a non-parole period of four years and nine months to commence on 18 October 2002 and to expire on 17 July 2007, the date upon which the respondent is eligible to be released to parole. That sentence of five years is in respect of the more serious of the two assault charges; 5. On the remaining assault charge, Mr Dickson is sentenced to four years imprisonment from 18 October 2005, with a non-parole period to expire on 17 July 2007, the date upon which he is to be released to parole; 6. In respect of the four year sentence the Court has taken into account the matter upon the Form 1; 7. The aggregate of those various sentences is that Mr Dickson is charged with eight years imprisonment and a non parole period of five years and nine months.

CCA 60259 of 2002

MEAGHER JA
SIMPSON J
HOWIE J
Monday, 5 August 2002

REGINA v BRETT NEVILLE DICKSON

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against the sentence imposed by Judge Goldring in Campbelltown District Court on 29 April 2002.

2 On 23 November 2001 at the Liverpool Local Court the respondent, Mr Brett Neville Dickson, pleaded guilty to various offences under s 51A of the Justices Act, and as a result of which an indictment was presented on 29 April 2002 and he was charged as follows: count 1, aggravated robbery occasioning grievous bodily harm; count 2, aggravated robbery; count 3, escape lawful custody. His Honour was also asked to take into account a Form 1 offence of taking and driving a conveyance.

3 His Honour on…

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 Dickson

Details

AGLC: R v Dickson [2002] NSWCCA 327
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 327
Decision Date: 5 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dickson was heard in the High Court of Australia. The defendant, Dickson, was convicted of aggravated robbery occasioning grievous bodily harm, as well as escaping lawful custody. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge failed to comply with the provisions of section 57 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in his sentencing of Dickson.

The legal issue before the Court was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the law in sentencing Dickson. The Court considered whether the trial judge had erred in failing to properly consider the mitigating factors in Dickson's case, and whether this had resulted in an excessive sentence. The Court also considered whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles set out in Pearce v The King in determining the appropriate sentence.

The Court found that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the mitigating factors in Dickson's case, and had therefore erred in his sentencing. The Court held that the trial judge had not correctly applied the principles set out in Pearce v The King, and that this had resulted in an excessive sentence. The Court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and ordered a retrial. The Court further ordered that, in the event that Dickson is again convicted, the sentencing judge must consider the mitigating factors in his case and ensure that the sentence imposed is not excessive.

Orders