R v Readman (1990) 47 A Crim R 181. R v Roberts (1994) 73 A Crim R 306. R v Maddocks (CCA - unreported - 25 November 1993). R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48. R v Henry and Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111. R v Richards (1981) 2 NSWLR 464. R v Tocknell (CCA - unreported - 28 May 1998). R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109. R v Farah (CCA - unreported - 11 December 1998). R v Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 129. R v Lattouf (CCA - unreported - 12 December 1996). R v Broad (CCA - unreported - 13 March 1984). Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295.
DECISION:
Crown appeal dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60837/98
DUNFORD J GREG JAMES J SMART AJ 19 MAY 1999
R v Jean Vincent Didier GOVINDEN JUDGMENT
1 DUNFORD J. This is a Crown appeal on the ground of inadequacy against the sentences imposed on the respondent following his pleas of guilty to charges of accessory after the fact to armed robbery and robbery in company, both contrary to section 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which provides for maximum penalties of 14 years and 20 years penal servitude respectively.
2 In respect of the charge of accessory after the fact to armed robbery, and taking into account a further matter on a Form 2 of possess a shortened firearm, her Honour Judge Ainslie-Wallace deferred entering a conviction, on the respondent entering into a recognisance himself in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for two years with provision for supervision and psychotherapy.
3 On the charge of robbery in company, her Honour sentenced the respondent to 200 hours community service, of which 50 hours was to be spent at an attendance centre. The sentences were imposed on 8 December 1998 and the Director's Notice of Appeal was signed on 22 December and served personally on the respondent on 23 December.
4 The facts giving rise to the two matters may be shortly stated as follows. On 14 March 1998 one Yann Legrand robbed a Pizza Hut takeaway store at Woodcroft using a shortened firearm. He was questioned, arrested and charged with armed robbery…
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 Govinden
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118
Case
[1999] NSWCCA 118
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the court involved the sentencing of an individual who had been convicted of armed robbery in company. The defendant, Govinden, was sentenced to a non-custodial sentence by the trial judge, which the Crown contested. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Crown argued that the trial judge had failed to properly consider the general requirement for a custodial sentence in cases of armed robbery in company, and that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.
The legal issues central to this appeal centred around the principles and criteria for sentencing in cases of serious criminal offences, specifically armed robbery in company. The Crown contended that the trial judge did not adequately address the gravity of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the importance of denunciation. The court had to determine whether the trial judge erred in law by imposing a non-custodial sentence and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.
The court examined the sentencing principles applicable to serious offences and the factors that should be considered when determining an appropriate sentence. The trial judge had considered various mitigating factors and the defendant's personal circumstances. However, the court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently emphasised the need for a custodial sentence to fulfil the purposes of deterrence and denunciation. The court concluded that the trial judge had indeed erred in law by not imposing a custodial sentence and that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing.
The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing, with specific directions to ensure that the sentence imposed reflects the seriousness of the offence and fulfils the purposes of deterrence and denunciation. The trial court was instructed to consider the principles of sentencing for armed robbery in company and to impose a custodial sentence that is commensurate with the gravity of the offence.