R v Griffiths - [2005] NSWCCA 184

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Griffiths [2005] NSWCCA 184

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/226

HEARING DATE(S): 4 May 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 04/05/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Darrell Anthony Griffiths

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J Hulme J Simpson J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0063

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Blackmore DCJ

COUNSEL:
J. Girdham (Crown)
P. Winch (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)
P. Dwyer (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SENTENCE
"DISCOUNT" FOR PLEA OF GUILTY AT EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY
WHETHER STATED INTENTION TO ALLOW SUBSTANTIAL DISCOUNT ACHIEVED
NO SPECIAL POINT OF PRINCIPLE

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
BY MAJORITY, APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2005/226
GROVE J
HULME J
SIMPSON J
4 May 2005

REGINA v DARRELL ANTHONY GRIFFITHS

Judgment

GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Blackmore DCJ in Sydney District Court. The applicant was committed for sentence after pleading guilty before a magistrate to offences of aggravated breaking, entering and stealing and resisting arrest, both offences occurring on 9 April 2004.
The facts were before the Court in an agreed statement which in brief described the applicant climbing onto the first floor balcony of a building in Redfern at about 6.12 pm on the date mentioned. He was observed by neighbours. They called police. Within the premises the applicant took a pair of motorcycle pants from a wardrobe and a toiletries bag. However, before he could depart, police arrived and he was called upon by them. He ran up the stairs of the premises where he encountered an occupier who was drinking with friends. He said “Don’t say anything, the cops are after me”, but thereafter police entered this room.
Acting Inspector Wallbank told the applicant he was under arrest and directed him to go to the floor. The applicant refused and resisted attempts to have him do so by stiffening his limbs and body. Other police came to assist in restraining the applicant who continued to resist by straightening his arms and moving them around, but eventually the applicant was handcuffed and taken to the police station where he was in due course charged.
The maximum prescribed penalty for resisting arrest contrary to s 58 of the Crimes Act is five years imprisonment. His Honour imposed a sentence consisting of a fixed term of imprisonment for six months dating from the date of arrest and expiring on 8 October 2004. The maximum prescribed penalty for aggravated breaking, entering and stealing is twenty years imprisonment. His Honour imposed a sentence consisting of a full term imprisonment of four years and six months commencing upon the expiry of the sentence for resisting arrest, with a non parole period of three years and three months. Thus, the earliest date for parole available to the applicant became 8 January 2008.
The circumstance of aggravation relied upon by the prosecution was that the applicant was aware that there were occupants in the…

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 Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Griffiths [2005] NSWCCA 184
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 184
Decision Date: 4 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court heard the matter of R v Griffiths, where the defendant pleaded guilty to several charges. The central issue was the extent of the discount to be applied to the defendant's sentence due to the early guilty plea. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had indeed applied a substantial discount as intended, and whether this decision was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offence.

The primary legal question was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles regarding the sentencing discount for a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. The court examined the trial judge's reasons to assess if there was an error in the application of the law or if the discount was appropriately calculated. It was also necessary to consider whether the discount achieved was in line with the established guidelines and the overarching goal of sentencing, which is to achieve justice in individual cases while maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed intended to allow a substantial discount for the defendant's early guilty plea. The reasoning included a detailed analysis of the trial judge's comments and the sentencing principles outlined in relevant case law. The court concluded that there was no error in the trial judge's approach and that the discount applied was commensurate with the circumstances of the offence. Consequently, the decision to apply the discount was affirmed, and it was held that no special point of principle arose from this matter.

Orders