R v Dunn - [2003] NSWCCA 169

CITATION: R v Dunn [2003] NSWCCA 169

HEARING DATE(S): 24/06/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher ACJ at 1; Dowd J at 24; Barr J at 25

DECISION: 1. In respect of the May 2000 offences, the sentence imposed by the learned trial judge should be set aside and replaced by an order of imprisonment for a term of 5 years, commencing on 21 July 2001 and expiring on 20 July 2006; 2. The learned trial judge's sentences on the September 2001 firearms charges should be set aside and there should be substituted the following:- (a) On the s 51(1A) offence, 7 years imprisonment commencing on 21 July 2004 and expiring on 20 July 2011, with a non-parole period of 3 years 9 months commencing on 21 July 2004 and expiring on 20 April 2008, on which date he will be eligible for release on parole; (b) On the s 51(1) offence, 2 years 3 months imprisonment commencing on 21 July 2004 and expiring on 20 October 2006. There will be non non-parole period because of the previous sentence.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Crown Appeals - Inadequate sentences - Mitigation of sentence - Principles applicable when offender of average intelligence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Firearms Act 1996
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Letteri (NSWCCA 18/03/92, unreported)
R v Murchie [1999] NSWCCA 424

PARTIES :
Regina
v
Jack James Dunn

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60480 of 2002

COUNSEL: Crown: GIO Rowling
Respondent: C Craigie SC

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Respondent: Horowitz & Bilinsky

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/21/0053; 02/21/1201

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Nicholson DCJ

CCA 60480 of 2002

MEAGHER JA
DOWD J
BARR J
Wednesday, 13 August 2003

REGINA v DUNN

FACTS

The respondent to this appeal was tried in the District Court on four charges: (a) two charges under ss 97(1), 117 and 154A of the Crimes Act 1900, arising out of offences committed on 17 May 2000; (b) two charges under ss 5(1) and 51(1A) of the Firearms Act 1996, arising out of events which took place between 17 and 23 September 2001.

He was sentenced on 27 September 2002. In respect of the May 2000 offences there was imposed a head sentence of 3 years 9 months; in respect of the September 2001 offences, a head sentence of 6 years.

The Crown appealed against these sentences pursuant to s 53 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912.

per

i. The sentences imposed by the trial judge were inadequate, despite the fact that his Honour made no error of fact or law.

ii. The result is so offensive to one’s sense of appropriateness, so little calculated to deter the proliferation of such crimes, and so inexplicable, that the sentences should be set aside.

per

R v Scognamiglio

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 Dunn

Details

AGLC: R v Dunn [2003] NSWCCA 169
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 169
Decision Date: 13 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Dunn, who had been convicted of serious criminal offences. The court had to consider whether the sentence imposed was adequate in all the circumstances, particularly in light of the nature and circumstances of the crimes committed. The appeal was heard in the highest court of the jurisdiction, where the Crown argued that the sentence was inadequate and failed to reflect the seriousness of the offences.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the principles of sentencing for serious crimes and the adequacy of the sentence imposed on Dunn. The Crown contended that the sentence did not sufficiently reflect the gravity of the crimes, nor did it adequately account for the impact on the victims. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the principles applicable to offenders of average intelligence and whether it achieved the aims of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the severity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the need for appropriate deterrence and rehabilitation. The court highlighted that the sentence imposed must reflect the seriousness of the crimes and serve to protect the community. After thorough consideration, the court found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences and was, therefore, inadequate. The court concluded that the sentence imposed did not sufficiently achieve the aims of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Consequently, the court allowed the Crown's appeal and remitted the matter to the lower court for reconsideration of the sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the original sentence be set aside, and the matter be remitted to the lower court for the imposition of an appropriate sentence that adequately reflects the seriousness of the crimes and achieves the aims of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders