R v Duffy - [1999] NSWCCA 321

CITATION: Regina v Julie Anne DUFFY [1999] NSWCCA 321

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60268/99

HEARING DATE(S): 13 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 October 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
Julie Anne Duffy

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Ireland J at 14; Hidden J at 15

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0903

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: English DCJ

COUNSEL: R. D. Ellis - Crown
In person - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
T. A. Murphy - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act
Criminal Appeal Act

DECISION: Crown appeal against sentence dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60268/99
SULLY J
IRELAND J
HIDDEN J
13 October 1999

REGINA v Julie Ann DUFFY
JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J: On 30 April 1999 Miss Julie Anne Duffy stood for sentence before her Honour English DCJ at the District Court in Sydney. She was presented before her Honour charged with robbery in company in contravention of s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, an offence carrying, upon conviction, a maximum statutory penalty of penal servitude for twenty years. Miss Duffy pleaded not guilty, but she was found guilty, and was sentenced thereupon to penal servitude for a minimum term of twelve months and an additional term of a further twelve months. The minimum term was dated so as to expire on 21 July of this year. Having so expired, Miss Duffy was released to parole in accordance with the order in that behalf of the sentencing Judge. So far as is indicated by the material at present before this Court, she has remained at liberty on that parole without having committed further offences. 2 The Crown has brought, pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act, an appeal against the sentence thus imposed in the District Court. The Crown contends that the sentence is manifestly inadequate, and that this Court should intervene, notwithstanding that any intervention by this Court will undoubtedly mean, in the events that have happened, the recommitting of the respondent, Miss Duffy, to prison. 3 The material facts are within a small compass. Put simply, they entail that the respondent and co-offender set upon a young woman who was standing upon a kerb in a suburb minding her own business, and robbed her of some property. During the course of that occurrence the co-offender, who was armed with a knife, inflicted upon the victim some cuts which, although they do not seem to have been particularly serious, must undoubtedly have caused the greatest distress and anxiety, discomfort and fear, to the victim concerned. 4 It needs to be said at once, and plainly, that the offence as thus described was not by any stretch of the imagination a simple, trivial, or in any other sense inconsequential street offence. Robbery in company is a serious criminal offence, as the statutory maximum provided for its punishment ought to make clear to anybody and everybody. 5 The proposition that a sentence of the kind imposed by the learned sentencing…

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 Duffy

Details

AGLC: R v Duffy [1999] NSWCCA 321
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 321
Decision Date: 13 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Julie Anne Duffy, the defendant was convicted of robbery in company, an offence carrying a maximum penalty of twenty years' imprisonment under the Crimes Act. The Court of Criminal Appeal heard an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Julie Anne Duffy, who was found guilty and sentenced to penal servitude for a minimum term of twelve months, with an additional term of twelve months. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and the appeal was brought under the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the appeal and determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate, and therefore dismissed the Crown's appeal against the sentence. The Court noted that the offence was serious, but also considered factors such as the respondent's criminal history, her conduct while on parole, and the need for consistency in sentencing. The Court ultimately found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate and dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Orders