R v Haines - [2001] NSWCCA 111

CITATION: R v Haines [2001] NSWCCA 111

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60272/00

HEARING DATE(S): 23 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Jade Andrew Haines

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 1; Barr J at 40

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/31/0164

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kinchington DCJ

COUNSEL : W.L. Robinson QC (Crown)
T.J. Golding (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
D.J. Humphreys (Applicant)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act

CASES CITED:
R v Ehrenburg (unreported, NSWCCA, 14 December 1990)
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 71 ALJR 875
R v Diamond (unreported, NSWCCA, 18 February 1993)
R v Reardon (1996) 89 A Crim R 180

DECISION: Appeal allowed

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60272/00

STUDDERT J
BARR J

REGINA v JADE ANDREW HAINES

JUDGMENT

1 STUDDERT J: Jade Andrew Haines pleaded guilty before his Honour Judge Kinchington QC to two charges of robbery in company, one charge of stealing from the person and one charge of cultivating a prohibited plant. The judge imposed sentences as follows:

- for the two offences of robbery in company, sentences of five years six months to be served concurrently, with a minimum term of two years six months to commence on 7 March 2000;

- for the offence of steal from the person, his Honour imposed a fixed term of imprisonment of two years, also to commence on 7 March 2000;

2 The offences of robbery in company were offences for which s 97 of the Crimes Act imposes a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment. For the offence of stealing from the person, s 94 of the Crimes Act imposes a maximum penalty of fourteen years imprisonment. For the offence of cultivating a prohibited drug, s 23(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act imposes a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

3 The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the above sentences. The application was lodged out of time, but the Crown does not oppose the application for an extension of time for the necessary lodgment, and the Court grants the necessary extension of time.

4 I draw on the reasons for sentence expressed by the sentencing judge in recording the objective facts.

5 The offences of robbery in company and the offence of stealing from the person were committed shortly after midnight on 14 February 1998 near the Moree Leagues Club. A patron named Kenneth Wright left the club and the applicant and other men approached him asking for a cigarette. However, when Mr Wright endeavoured to walk away, the applicant ran behind him and karate-kicked him in the back, causing him to fall to the ground. The victim was then set upon by other members of the group and…

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 Haines

Details

AGLC: R v Haines [2001] NSWCCA 111
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 111
Decision Date: 30 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jade Andrew Haines was convicted in the District Court for two counts of robbery in company, one count of stealing from the person, and one count of cultivating a prohibited plant. Haines appealed against the severity of the sentences imposed, which included concurrent terms for the robberies, a fixed term for the theft, and another fixed term for cultivating cannabis. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the sentences were appropriate, particularly in light of the disparity with a co-offender’s sentence. Haines argued that the sentencing judge failed to appropriately apply the parity principle, which demands proportionality between sentences of co-offenders to avoid a justifiable sense of grievance. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the disparity was justified due to the differences in the roles and circumstances of the offenders. The Court found that while the sentencing judge had considered the parity principle, the sentences were disproportionate, with Haines receiving a significantly harsher penalty than his co-offender despite similar backgrounds and aggravating factors. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the appeal, reduced the sentences, and re-sentenced Haines to a term of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of one year and nine months for the first two counts, and a fixed term of one year and nine months for the third count, while maintaining the sentence for cultivating cannabis.

Orders