R v Geiger - [2001] NSWCCA 140

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Geiger [2001] NSWCCA 140

FILE NUMBER(S):
60645/00

HEARING DATE(S): 11 April 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 11/04/2001

PARTIES:
Regina v Hank Stephen Geiger

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/41/0043; 99/41/0264

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Phelan DCJ

COUNSEL:
(A) M Thangaraj
(R) M Grogan

SOLICITORS:
(A) D J Humphreys
(R) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS:
Sentencing - parity - different factors applicable to each offender - lesser sentence not permissible

LEGISLATION CITED:
Nil

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60645/00

WOOD CJ AT CL
SMART AJ
Wednesday 11 April 2001

REGINA v HANK STEPHEN GEIGER

JUDGMENT

1 WOOD CJ AT CL: I will ask Smart AJ to give the first judgment.
2 SMART AJ: Hank Stephen Geiger seeks leave to appeal against the severity of sentences imposed upon him in the District Court. On a charge that at Queanbeyan on 7 September 1999 he had in his possession a Commodore sedan stolen outside New South Wales and in the Australian Capital Territory, he was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 months. On charges of take and drive a conveyance on 10 March 1999 and break, enter and steal, on that day he was sentenced on each charge to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. Two offences of fail to appear were taken into account. All sentences dated from 5 April 2000. The point at issue is one of parity having regard to the sentence imposed on the applicant and Mark Douglas Cross, a co-offender.
7 September 1999 offence

3 A car was stolen from the staff park at Isabella Plains Primary School, ACT. About 4pm the applicant was a passenger in that vehicle. He admitted to the police that he was a passenger in the vehicle from Boronia Crescent to Callan Street, Queanbeyan, a short distance. He also admitted when he got into the vehicle he knew it was stolen. He insisted that he got out of the vehicle at Callan Street and was not in the vehicle when it was subsequently pursued at speed by the police. The co-offender was a cousin. He was sentenced in the Local Court and received a minimum term of 6 months and an additional term of 6 months. He was sentenced to fixed terms of 6 months for driving without a licence and dangerous driving. He was 19 years of age and had a criminal history but the papers do not reveal the details or the subjective features.
4 Complaint is made that the judge when dealing with this matter in relation to Mr Geiger, firstly imposed a significantly longer sentence than that imposed on Mr Cross and secondly, did not take into account that the matter could have been dealt with in the Local Court. The sentence on the applicant for this offence has expired. This…

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 Geiger

Details

AGLC: R v Geiger [2001] NSWCCA 140
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 140
Decision Date: 11 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Geiger involved an appeal by the respondent against his sentence for the offence of drug trafficking. The appellant argued that his sentence should be reduced to match the sentence of his co-offender, who had been convicted of the same offence. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant's sentence could be reduced to achieve parity with the sentence of his co-offender. The court had to consider whether the principle of parity in sentencing allowed for a lesser sentence to be imposed on the appellant despite the different factors applicable to each offender.

The court held that the principle of parity in sentencing required the imposition of similar sentences on co-offenders who were equally blameworthy. However, the court also recognised that different factors could apply to each offender, and a lesser sentence was not permissible where the differences were significant. The court found that the appellant and his co-offender were equally blameworthy, but the differences in their circumstances, such as the appellant's role in the drug trafficking operation and his criminal history, justified a different sentence. The court held that the principle of parity did not require identical sentences but required similar sentences that took into account the relevant differences between the offenders.

The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not disproportionate to the sentence imposed on his co-offender, given the differences in their circumstances. The court held that the principle of parity did not require identical sentences but required similar sentences that took into account the relevant differences between the offenders. The court also noted that the appellant's sentence reflected the seriousness of his offence and the need to deter and prevent drug trafficking.

The Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not disproportionate to the sentence imposed on his co-offender, given the differences in their circumstances. The court held that the principle of parity did not require identical sentences but required similar sentences that took into account the relevant differences between the offenders. The court also noted that the appellant's sentence reflected the seriousness of his offence and the need to deter and prevent drug trafficking.

Orders