R v DRR - [2004] NSWCCA 126

CITATION: R v DRR [2004] NSWCCA 126

HEARING DATE(S): 31 March 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 May 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1; Hidden J at 22; Howie J at 23

DECISION: (1) Leave to appeal granted; (2) Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - detain for advantage - appeal against severity of sentence - no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s6

PARTIES :
Regina
D R R

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60440/03

COUNSEL: Mr B Knox SC for the Crown
Ms S Kluss for the Applicant

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions
Ross Hill & Associates for the Applicant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/31/0337

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Coolahan DCJ

- 2 -

60440/03

Sperling J
Hidden J
Howie J

Friday, 7 May 2004

Regina v D R R

Judgment

1 Sperling J: On 5 May 2003, following a plea of guilty, the applicant was sentenced in the District Court to imprisonment for four and a half years with a non-parole period of two years and three months on one count of detaining for advantage. The maximum penalty for that offence is 14 years' imprisonment.

2 The facts of the case are set out in a fact sheet tendered at the sentencing hearing. The facts, as there recorded, are as follows.

About 6pm on Friday 21 June 2002, the victim was loading some items into her car from a flat located at 10/6 Fowler Street, Hamilton South. During this activity she was unable to lift one of the bags. She went down to another unit to seek assistance from her friend. However, the friend was not home. She then went to another flat where she knew the occupants, again to seek assistance to carry the bag. There she saw the offender who she said was not known to her. When she requested assistance he offered to help on condition that she give him a lift to the Nineways at Broadmeadow. The offender then went with the victim and carried the items to her car.

The victim and the offender then got into the car and she drove him towards the Nineways. Part way through the journey the offender requested the victim to drive him to Charlestown. Given that the offender had assisted her, she agreed and headed towards Charlestown. At this stage of the journey the offender started behaving strangely, directing the victim through back streets muttering strange things to himself and constantly checking that they were not being followed by police. The victim began to fear for her welfare, but complied with the offender’s directions and demands with a view that he would soon be out of her car. The offender then directed the victim to a set of units in Windale. There the offender’s behaviour became even stranger. He indicated to the victim that people outside the units were police and that they were after him. He told the victim that she herself was a police officer. He further indicated…

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 DRR

Details

AGLC: R v DRR [2004] NSWCCA 126
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 126
Decision Date: 7 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus DRR, the dispute arose from the defendant's conviction for unlawfully detaining a person to gain an advantage. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, where DRR sought to appeal the severity of the sentence imposed. The appeal centred on the court's interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and the proportionality of the sentence to the crime committed.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge correctly applied the law in imposing the sentence and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inappropriate in the circumstances. The appeal hinged on the weight given to the seriousness of the crime, the defendant's criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also examined whether the trial judge had adequately considered the principles of sentencing and the need for deterrence and retribution.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and properly considered the relevant sentencing principles. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inappropriate, given the gravity of the offence and the defendant's criminal history. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need to balance the various factors involved in determining an appropriate penalty.

Orders