R v Griffiths - [2001] NSWCCA 130

CITATION: R v Griffiths [2001] NSWCCA 130

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60847/1999

HEARING DATE(S): 11 April 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 April 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Kevin Phillip Griffiths

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Smart AJ at 18

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/31/0142

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Job DCJ

COUNSEL : M. Grogan (C)
Self

SOLICITORS: S E O'connor

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeals - appeal against sentence - armed robbery in company - severity of sentence - delay in sentence - subjective circumstances - applicant at the crossroads - rehabilitation since sentence

CASES CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 s 97

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

WOOD CJ at CL

SMART AJ

WEDNESDAY 11 APRIL 2001

Regina v Kevin Phillip GRIFFITHS

The applicant was convicted for the offence of armed robbery in company. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence on the grounds that (1) the sentencing Judge did not take into account the fact that the applicant was on bail for two years before being sentenced; (2) the applicant was addicted to heroin at the time of the offence; (3) neither psychological or pre-sentence reports were prepared; (4) the offence was out of character; (5) the complainant tainted her evidence; (6) the applicant was at the crossroads; (7) the applicant had rehabilitated since sentence.

HELD: (Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed):

Ground 1: applicant was on bail for two years before being sentenced

The applicant did not point to any prejudice occasioned by the delay, or to any oppressiveness attributable to that fact or to the need to comply with strict bail conditions, that would justify mitigation of sentence.

Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517; Blanco (1999) NSWCCA 121 applied.

Ground 2: fact that applicant was addicted to heroin

Addiction to narcotics may provide a reason for the commission of an offence, but it does not excuse the criminality or provide any reason for mitigation of sentence.

Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 applied.

Ground 3: Neither psychological or pre-sentence reports were prepared

The fact that the applicant chose not to place such material before the Court on sentence cannot be relied upon on appeal.

Ground 4: Offence was out of character

The applicant had an extensive prior record for offences of dishonesty and breaking into premises. This was not the case of a first offender.

Ground 5: complainant tainted her evidence

The complainant gave evidence before the jury which was obviously accepted. There is no basis for concluding that the verdict was unsupported.

Ground 6: Applicant at the crossroads

Where a person has reached the cross roads at the time of sentence this is a matter to be taken into account. The applicant had made some efforts at rehabilitation, however, this was not a case where the applicant was the ‘crossroads’.

Salemah NSWCCA, 9 June…

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 [2001] NSWCCA 130
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 130
Decision Date: 11 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Griffiths involved the appellant, Griffiths, who was convicted of armed robbery in company. The appeal was against the severity of his sentence, which had been imposed after a significant delay. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the delay in sentencing and his subsequent rehabilitation efforts should have been considered more favourably by the lower court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the delay in sentencing should have impacted the severity of the punishment, and whether the appellant's efforts towards rehabilitation post-sentence should have been given due consideration. The court had to balance these factors against the seriousness of the crime committed. The appellant's argument was that his remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation, which occurred after the delay in sentencing, should have been reflected in a lesser sentence.

The High Court considered the principles of sentencing and the objectives of punishment, which include deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. The court found that while the delay in sentencing was a factor, it did not warrant a reduction in the severity of the sentence, given the gravity of the offence. The appellant's rehabilitation efforts were acknowledged, but they were deemed insufficient to significantly mitigate the sentence imposed. The court held that the lower court had appropriately balanced the various considerations and that the sentence was proportionate to the crime committed.

The final orders of the court upheld the original sentence imposed on Griffiths. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's sentence remained unchanged. The court emphasised that while rehabilitation and remorse are important, they do not automatically justify a reduction in a sentence for a serious crime like armed robbery in company.

Orders