R v Grover; Grover v R - [2013] NSWCCA 149

Court of Criminal Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: R v Grover; Grover v R

Medium Neutral Citation: [2013] NSWCCA 149

Hearing Date(s): 28 May 2013

Decision Date: 26 June 2013

Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Fullerton J at [93]
McCallum J at [94]

Decision:
(1) Crown appeal allowed.
(2) Leave to appeal is granted to the respondent but the appeal is dismissed.
(3) The sentences imposed by Puckeridge ADCJ on 14 September 2012 are quashed.
(4) In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced as follows:
(i) For the offence of supply a prohibited drug contrary to s25 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) a fixed term of imprisonment of 12 months, commencing 16 July 2011 and expiring 15 July 2012.
(ii) For the offence of break enter and steal, contrary to s112(1) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 7 Harbord Pharmacy) imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years, commencing 16 October 2011 and expiring 15 October 2013, with a balance of term of 1 year, expiring 15 October 2014.
(iii) For the offence of break enter and steal, contrary to s112(1) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 13 Merrylands) imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years, commencing 16 January 2012 and expiring 15 January 2014, with a balance of term of 1 year expiring 15 January 2015.
(iv) For the offence of break enter and steal, contrary to s112(1) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 22 Mulgoa Pharmacy) imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years, commencing 16 April 2012 and expiring 15 April 2014 with a balance of term of 1 year, expiring 15 April 2015.
(v) For the offence of break enter and steal, contrary to s112(1) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 25 Werrington) imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years, commencing 16 July 2012 and expiring 15 July 2014, with a balance of term of 1 year, expiring 15 July 2015.
(vi) For the offence of aggravated break enter and steal, contrary to s112(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 2 Caringbah Chemist) imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, commencing 16 January 2013 and expiring 15 July 2015, with a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months expiring 15 January 2017.
(vii) For the offence of attempt aggravated break enter and steal, contrary to s112(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 3 Miranda) imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, commencing 16 April 2013 and expiring 15 October 2015, with a balance of term of 1 year and 6 months expiring 15 April 2017.
(viii) For the offence of aggravated break enter and steal, contrary to s112(2) Crimes Act 1900 (Sequence 1 Carrs Park Chemist) to which the Form 1 matters are attached, imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years, commencing 16 July 2013 and expiring 15 July 2016, with a balance of term of 2 years and 3 months, expiring 15 October 2018.
(ix) For the offence of attempt to use false instrument, contrary to s254(b)(i)

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Grover; Grover v R and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] NSWCCA 149
Decision Date: 26 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the appellant, Grover, who was convicted of a substantial number of criminal offences and sentenced by the County Court of Victoria. The Crown filed an appeal against the leniency of the sentences imposed, while Grover appealed on the basis that the sentences were excessive. The Court of Appeal, comprising of Nettle, Redlich and Weinberg JJA, was tasked with determining the legality and appropriateness of the sentences imposed on Grover. The central legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge correctly applied the law in imposing the sentences, particularly in relation to the use of a Form 1 and the aggregation of sentences for multiple offences. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentencing judge appropriately accounted for the special circumstances of the case and whether the sentences were adequate given the nature of the offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not properly deal with the Form 1 matters, leading to an incorrect approach in aggregating the sentences. It was determined that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for the sentences imposed and did not properly consider the special circumstances of the case. The court held that the sentences were inadequate, given the extensive nature of the offences. Consequently, the Court of Appeal quashed the sentences and ordered a re-sentencing hearing, emphasizing the need for the sentencing judge to provide comprehensive reasons and to appropriately account for all relevant factors, including the special circumstances.

In light of the above findings, the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and dismissed Grover's appeal. The sentences imposed by the County Court were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the County Court for re-sentencing. The judges underscored the importance of clear and reasoned sentencing decisions, particularly in cases involving multiple offences and special circumstances.

Orders