R v Dwight - [2000] NSWCCA 164

CITATION: R v DWIGHT [2000] NSWCCA 164

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60066/99

HEARING DATE(S): 14 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 April 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Rodney John DWIGHT

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1; Dowd J at 24

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/1022

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Luland DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: M Grogan
Appellant; C Lyons

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: TA Murphy

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed

- 8 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60066/99

HULME J
DOWD J

Friday, 14 April 2000

REGINA -v Rodney John DWIGHT

JUDGMENT

1    HULME J: On 12 February 1999, Rodney John Dwight was sentenced by Judge Luland in respect of four counts of robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon. Under s.97(2) of the Crimes Act, each offence carried a maximum penalty of twenty-five years imprisonment.
2    His Honour was asked to take into account the number of matters on a Form 2. These included eight further offences of armed robbery, some with a dangerous weapon and others with an offensive weapon, one count of breaking, entering and stealing and two counts of stealing a motor vehicle. The first of the offences charged occurred on 2 August 1998 and the last on 8 September 1998 and involved a liquor outlet, two newsagencies and an RSL Club. The property stolen in each offence was $7,000, $18,300, 88 cartons of cigarettes and some $12,500 respectively. It was in the course of leaving the scene of the last of these offences that the applicant was arrested.
3    The offences taken into account occurred between 24 June 1998 and 3 September 1998. In these offences over $34,000 in cash and $13,000 worth of cigarettes were stolen together with other property. Both in the case of the offences taken into account and those charged, the applicant was always in the company of at least one other offender.
4    At the time he appeared before the sentencing judge the applicant was twenty-three years of age, single, engaged in part-time work and studying. He was receiving an Austudy allowance.
5    He had been a difficult child and it would seem that his father had been physically and emotionally abusive towards him. His relationship with his mother was, however, close. His antecedents record the commission of his first offences in June 1992, these being possession and self-administration of a prohibited drug. Thereafter, up until September 1994 he committed numerous offences of dishonesty and assault, penalties imposed including a number of control orders and terms of imprisonment. The longest of these included a minimum term of eleven months imposed in October 1994.
6    Thereafter, the applicant seems to have made serious attempts at rehabilitation. He commenced a TAFE course and his mother and girlfriend gave evidence to the effect that he seemed to have turned his life around and all was going well. In the light of that evidence, one assault charge arising from an incident in January…

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 Dwight

Details

AGLC: R v Dwight [2000] NSWCCA 164
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 164
Decision Date: 14 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v Dwight, the appellant, Rodney John Dwight, appealed against his conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court. The appellant was found guilty of four counts of robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, with each offence carrying a maximum penalty of twenty-five years imprisonment. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account the appellant's mental condition when assessing his criminality and degree to which deterrence was a required ingredient, whether the judge erred in not giving an appropriate discount for the pleas of guilty made by the appellant, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the appellant's mental condition did not significantly contribute to his criminality, and therefore, the sentencing judge was not wrong in not taking it into account. The court also found that the guidelines for armed robberies provided by the High Court in Regina v Henry & Barber & ors applied, and the appellant's offences were worse than those characterised by the guidelines. The court further found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and Parliament's intention in legislating for these offences was to protect the public from the danger created by the presence of lethal weapons and to protect victims from trauma.

Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the appellant's mental condition did not significantly contribute to his criminality, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court ordered that leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Orders