Legal Research
Cases
R v Dorsett

R v Dorsett

Case [2002] NSWCCA 326 14 August 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Dorsett [2002] NSWCCA 326

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60813/00

HEARING DATE(S): 20 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina (NSW)
Adam Dorsett (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 18

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0745

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Blanch CJ/DC

COUNSEL : GIO Rowling (Crown)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
Hal Ginges and Co (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE - sentencing - armed robbery - multiple offences - neccessity discrete sentences.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s 97
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 44(2)

CASES CITED:
R v Harris [2001] NSWCCA 332
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Barton [2001] NSWCCA 63, 121 A Crim R 185
R v Bavadra [2000] NSWCCA 292, 115 A Crim R 152
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Thomson [2000] NSWCCA 309, 49 NSWLR 383
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111, 46 NSWLR 346
R v Lemene [2001] NSWCCA 5

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, sentences quashed, applicant re-sentenced. See para 17.

60813/00

DUNFORD J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Wednesday, 14 AUGUST 2002

R v Adam DORSETT

JUDGMENT

1 Dunford J: This is an application by Adam Christopher Dorsett for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on him by Blanch CJ/DC on 7 December 2000, following pleas of guilty to six charges of armed robbery contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 which provides for a maximum penalty of 20 years. His Honour was also asked when dealing with the first count to take into account five further charges, four more of armed robbery and one of demand money with menaces.

2 In respect of each of the offences, including the first count on which the other matters were taken into account, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years with non-parole periods of 8 years, the sentences to be concurrent and to date from 4 April 2000, the date on which the Applicant was arrested. In sentencing the Applicant the learned sentencing Judge noted that all the offences were committed between 6 and 30 March 2000 and were related and explained by the fact that the Applicant was a heroin addict who was desperate for money to feed his addiction; and in brief what the Applicant did was to arm himself with a knife, go into various business premises and threaten employees with the knife in order to obtain cash. In most, if not all of the cases, the knife was pointed at, or at least shown to, the victim. What made the case more serious was that at the time he committed the offences the Applicant was on parole for similar offences.

3 He was born on 24 June 1968 and accordingly is now 34 years old. His criminal record dates back to July 1982 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 Dorsett

Details

AGLC: R v Dorsett [2002] NSWCCA 326
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 326
Decision Date: 14 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dorsett, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery. The case reached the court for the purpose of determining an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed. The accused had pleaded guilty to several charges, including robbery with the use of a firearm and aggravated burglary. The court was tasked with assessing the severity of the offences and determining the appropriate cumulative sentence that reflected the gravity of the crimes.

The primary legal issue before the court was the imposition of discrete sentences for each offence, considering the overlap and interconnectedness of the crimes. The prosecution argued for concurrent sentences to reflect the totality of the offending, while the defence sought separate sentences to account for each distinct incident. The court had to balance the need for punishment with the principle of proportionality and consider whether any of the offences were so closely linked that they should be treated as a single act of criminality.

The court, in its judgment, acknowledged the seriousness of the offences and the need for a sentence that would adequately reflect the harm caused and serve as a deterrent. It was noted that the offences, though interconnected, involved multiple acts of violence and intimidation, justifying separate sentences. The court concluded that while some overlap existed, treating each offence as discrete was necessary to appropriately address the defendant's conduct. The final sentence comprised several terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently, ensuring the defendant faced a just and proportionate punishment for the crimes committed.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a total of 12 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years, to be served concurrently across the multiple charges. This sentence aimed to provide a comprehensive response to the defendant's criminal behaviour while adhering to the principles of justice and proportionality.

Orders