R v Dodd - [2004] NSWCCA 374

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Dodd [2004] NSWCCA 374

FILE NUMBER(S):
04/2328

HEARING DATE(S): 19/10/04

JUDGMENT DATE: 02/11/2004

PARTIES:
Regina
Alan William DODD

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J Buddin J M W Campbell AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/61/0143

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: English DCJ

COUNSEL:
H L Cox (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
P Dwyer - Applicant
(Sydney Regional ABoriginal Corp Legal Service)

S Kavanagh - Respondent
(DPP)

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - sentencing - enter dwelling house in circumstances of aggravation - good prospects of rehabilitation.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 ss21A,54B

DECISION:
1. Leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal allowed
3. Quash the sentence and in lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment which is to consist of a non-parole period of thirty months and a total term of five years, each to date from 31 March 2003, with the non-parole period expiring on 30 Setpember 2005
4. Specify 1 October 2005 as the earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CCA 04/2328

BARR J
BUDDIN J
M W CAMPBELL AJ
Tuesday 2 November 2004

REGINA v Alan William DODD
Judgment

BARR J: I agree with Campbell AJ.
BUDDIN J: I agree with Campbell AJ.
M W CAMPBELL AJ: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court in respect of an offence to which he entered a plea of guilty upon arraignment.
The offence to which the applicant pleaded guilty was an allegation that he did in circumstances of aggravation break and enter a dwelling house and did commit a serious indictable offence therein, namely, did steal a bum bag, a black purse, credit cards, personal papers and four thousand five hundred dollars and that at the time of the said offence he knew that there was a person in the dwelling house.
A sentence of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years was imposed. Both terms were ordered to commence on 31 March 2003 with the non-parole period fixed to expire on 30 March 2008.
The maximum penalty prescribed for the offence is twenty years imprisonment.
The sentencing judge, noting that the offence was committed on 29 March 2003, considered that it prima facie attracted the standard non-parole period of five years imprisonment provided for by Division 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Subsequent to her Honour’s decision the Court of Criminal Appeal in Regina v Way (2004) NSWCCA 131 determined that the standard non-parole period applied where the offender was convicted “after trial.”
Consequentially, the Crown conceded that there had been an error in the sentencing process and the matter proceeded upon the basis that re-sentencing would be appropriate. It is unnecessary to consider other ground of appeal.
It is to be noted that, in…

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 Dodd

Details

AGLC: R v Dodd [2004] NSWCCA 374
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 374
Decision Date: 2 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dodd before the court involved the sentencing of the accused, Dodd, who had been found guilty of entering a dwelling house under circumstances of aggravation. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature of the offence and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court was required to balance the need for punishment with the possibility of the defendant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The court considered various factors in its sentencing decision. It examined the severity of the offence, which involved entering a dwelling house with the intention to commit an indictable offence, and the presence of aggravating circumstances. The court also assessed the personal circumstances of the defendant, including his background, character, and prospects for rehabilitation. The court acknowledged the defendant's good prospects of rehabilitation, which was a mitigating factor in the sentencing process.

In reaching its decision, the court gave weight to the defendant's good prospects of rehabilitation and the potential for him to lead a law-abiding life in the future. The court recognised that the defendant had shown remorse for his actions and had taken steps towards rehabilitation. Considering these factors, the court imposed a sentence that was intended to provide both punishment and an opportunity for the defendant to reform and reintegrate into society. The sentence was tailored to address the specific circumstances of the case while also promoting the rehabilitation of the offender.

The final orders of the court reflected the sentencing considerations. The court imposed a sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating factors present. The court also ordered that the defendant be subject to certain conditions during and after his period of imprisonment, aimed at supporting his rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The sentence reflected a balanced approach, recognising the need for punishment while also providing an opportunity for the defendant's rehabilitation.

Orders