Legal Research
Cases
R v Gibbons

R v Gibbons

Case [2013] NSWCCA 166 15 July 2013

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gibbons [2013] NSWCCA 166
Hearing dates: 21 June 2013
Decision date: 15 July 2013
Before: Emmett JA at [3]
R S Hulme AJ at [5]
R A Hulme J at [4]
Decision:
(i) Appeal allowed;
(ii) Quash the sentence imposed by North DCJ on 14 November 2012;
(ii) Pursuant to s 53A of the Crimes Act 1900, sentence the Respondent in respect of each of the 5 counts of armed robbery to an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 7 years commencing on 26 August 2012;
(iv) Set an aggregate non-parole period of 4 years commencing on 26 August 2012 and expiring on 25 August 2016;
(v) Record as the date when it appears to the Court that the Respondent will first become eligible for parole 26 August 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - Crown appeal - robbery armed with an offensive weapon - multiple offences - significant further punishment required
Cases Cited: Green v R; Quinn v R [2011] HCA 49; (2011) 244 CLR 462
Hampton v R [2010] NSWCCA 278
Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
R v Hamilton [2000] NSWCCA 31
R v Harris [2011] NSWCCA 105
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Henry & Barber [1999] NSWCCA 107
R v Kalache [2000] NSWCCA 2; (2000) 111 A Crim R 152
R v Kelly [2010] NSWCCA 259
R v Renton [2002] NSWCCA 74
R v Smith [2007] NSWCCA 100
R v Speeding [2001] NSWCCA 105; 121 A Crim R 426
R v Thomson; R v Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Saddler v R [2009] NSWCCA 83
SKA v R; R v SKA [2009] NSWCCA 186
Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina
David Gibbons
Representation: Counsel:
J Dwyer (Crown)
A Francis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
S Kavanagh (Crown)
C Griffiths (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/26290
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2012-11-14 00:00:00

Before:

North DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/26290

Judgment

EMMETT JA: This is an appeal by the Crown against a sentence imposed on the respondent by a judge of the District Court. The respondent was charged with five counts of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon, being a knife. He pleaded guilty to those five counts. The sentencing judge imposed an aggregate sentence for all offences, consisting of imprisonment for five years and six months, with a non-parole period of three years.

I have a read in draft form the reasons of R S Hulme AJ, in which his Honour sets out the circumstances of the offences. It is significant that the offences occurred within two months after the respondent had entered into seven bonds undertaking to be of good behaviour. The offences could not be described as uncharacteristic aberration. Rather, they exhibit a continuing attitude of disobedience of the law.

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 Gibbons

Details

AGLC: R v Gibbons [2013] NSWCCA 166
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 166
Decision Date: 15 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Gibbons and another, were convicted of armed robbery and related charges. The Crown appealed the sentences imposed by the primary judge, arguing they were too lenient. The appeal was heard by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The Crown contended that the sentences did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes, which included the use of an offensive weapon and the commission of multiple offences. The respondents argued that the primary judge had appropriately considered the various sentencing principles and the circumstances of the case.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for punishment and deterrence. It examined the severity of the offences, the use of an offensive weapon, and the cumulative effect of the multiple charges. The court noted that the primary judge had correctly identified the aggravating factors but had placed insufficient weight on the need for significant further punishment. The court concluded that the sentences did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes or serve as a sufficient deterrent to the respondents and others.

In light of the above, the court allowed the Crown's appeal and substituted new sentences for the respondents. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the offences committed. The new sentences imposed by the court were to ensure that the respondents received significant further punishment, thereby achieving the aims of punishment and deterrence.

Orders