R v Harradine

Case [2012] SASCFC 103

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Criminal Appeal)

R v HARRADINE & HARRADINE

[2012] SASCFC 103

Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal

(The Honourable Justice Sulan, The Honourable Justice White and The Honourable Justice Nicholson)

30 August 2012

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEALS BY CROWN - PRINCIPLES APPLIED BY APPELLATE COURT TO CROWN APPEALS

CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - ROBBERY - SENTENCE

Crown appeals against sentence - the defendants were charged and pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery - offending involved robbing a hotel whilst armed, and threatening to use offensive weapons.

Sentencing Judge sentenced each defendant to two years and three months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months' imprisonment.

Whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate - whether the sentencing Judge erred in commencing with a starting point of three years.

Principles of Crown appeals, discussed - principles relating to sentencing for crimes of armed robbery, discussed.

Held:  Appeals allowed - sentencing Judge gave no explanation for departing from the sentencing standard discussed in R v Place - the sentences were manifestly unreasonable and ought to be addressed to maintain adequate sentencing standards for aggravated robbery - defendants sentenced to four years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months' imprisonment.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 137(1), referred to.
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212; R v Jones (2010) 108 SASR 479; R v Siozios (2004) 236 LSJS 88; R v Nemer (2003) 87 SASR 168; R v Place (2002) 81 SASR 395, applied.

R v HARRADINE & HARRADINE
[2012] SASCFC 103

Court of Criminal Appeal:       Sulan, White and Nicholson JJ

  1. SULAN J:             The Director of Public Prosecutions (‘the Director’) seeks permission to appeal against sentences imposed upon the defendants and respondents to these appeals, George Stanley Harradine and Anthony Neil Harradine.

  2. The defendants pleaded guilty when first arraigned to aggravated robbery. They, together with a third man, robbed a hotel manager when they were armed with screwdrivers, contrary to s 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The maximum penalty for the offence is life imprisonment.

  3. On 12 July 2012, a Judge of the District Court sentenced each defendant to two years and three months’ imprisonment, and fixed a non-parole period of 12 months’ imprisonment, the sentences to commence on 5 November 2011.

    Background

  4. The conduct giving rise to the offence occurred on 5 November 2011 at the Rosewater Hotel.  George Harradine and another man entered the hotel at about 11.30 am.  They confronted an employee who was standing at the rear bar situated in the dining room.  One of the men demanded money.  The other man was holding a yellow-handled screwdriver.  The employee pressed the duress alarm.  She then ran from the dining room into a bar where she warned others that there was a holdup.  She locked the…

Continue reading R v Harradine

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Harradine [2012] SASCFC 103
Case
[2012] SASCFC 103
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *R v Harradine* involved a Crown appeal against sentences imposed by the District Court on two defendants, George Harradine and Anthony Harradine, who had pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery. The offending involved the armed robbery of a hotel, during which offensive weapons were threatened. The appeal was heard by Sulan, White, and Nicholson JJ of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court was whether the sentences of two years and three months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 12 months, imposed by the District Court Judge were manifestly inadequate, thereby justifying the Crown's appeal. The court was required to consider the principles governing Crown appeals against sentence, particularly in cases of aggravated robbery, and to balance the need for general deterrence and public protection against the personal circumstances of the offenders.

The Full Court reasoned that while the District Court Judge had acknowledged the need for general deterrence and protection of the public, the sentences imposed did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the aggravated robbery offence. The court considered the use of a weapon (a screwdriver) and the threat of violence in a public place, which posed a significant risk to hotel employees. Despite acknowledging the personal circumstances of the Harradine brothers, including their remorse, family support, and cultural background, the court found that these factors did not sufficiently mitigate the gravity of the crime to warrant the relatively lenient sentences. The court applied the principle that sentences for aggravated robbery must be sufficiently severe to deter others and to reflect community condemnation of such conduct.

Consequently, the Full Court granted the Director of Public Prosecutions permission to appeal and allowed each appeal. The original sentences were set aside, and in substitution, each respondent was sentenced to four years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months, commencing from the date of the original offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

On 12 July 2012, a Judge of the District Court sentenced each defendant to two years and three months’ imprisonment, and fixed a non-parole period of 12 months’ imprisonment, the sentences to commence on 5 November 2011.Background The conduct giving rise to the offence occurred on 5 November 2011 at the Rosewater Hotel. George Harradine and another man entered the hotel at about 11.30 am. They confronted an employee who was standing at the rear bar situated in the dining room. One of the men demanded money. The other man was holding a yellow-handled screwdriver. The employee pressed the duress alarm. She then ran from the dining room into a bar where she warned others that there was a holdup. She locked the rear door which connected the bar from the rear dining room. Soon after, the two men left the area. The defendant, Anthony Harradine, was in a getaway car in the hotel carpark. When the two men came out of the hotel, they jumped into the getaway car. At that time, one of the hotel employees attempted to stop the driver from proceeding. Another employee had run into the street and hailed a police car. In the panic and confusion, Anthony Harradine manoeuvred the getaway car into a position from which escape could easily be blocked. The police approached the offenders’ car and arrested Anthony Harradine and George Harradine. The third member of the group escaped. A person was later arrested and charged.Sentencing remarks In sentencing the defendants, the Judge stated that he must have regard to the need for general deterrence, and acknowledged the need to protect persons, such as hotel workers, from this type of offending. He then dealt with the personal circumstances of the defendants. The defendant, Anthony Harradine, is 24 years of age. He has a number of previous convictions, commencing in November 2004. He had appeared before the court charged with driving a motor vehicle without consent, and other driving offences for which he received a bond without conviction. In 2006, he was convicted of offences of dishonesty, including unlawful possession and driving a motor vehicle without consent. No custodial penalty was imposed. Between January 2006 and July 2010 he appeared before magistrates courts on six occasions charged with various offences of dishonesty and driving offences. On each occasion, he received a good behaviour bond or a fine. The sentencing Judge accepted that Anthony Harradine is a proud aboriginal man who is very attached to his aboriginal culture. He is very close to his community. He had a good school record. When he was aged 11, his 16‑year-old brother died in a car accident. He was severely affected by the loss of his brother. It was accepted by the Judge that Anthony Harradine was contrite. He had written a letter of apology to the victims. Whilst awaiting sentence, he has been of immaculate behaviour. It was put to the Judge that the period that Anthony Harradine had spent in custody awaiting sentence had had a salutary effect upon him, and that he had strong family support.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

WHITE J NICHOLSON J
I have had regard to the letters of apology written by each defendant. Further, I accept that the defendants each have strong family ties and support networks in the community. I consider a non-parole period of two years and 3 months’ imprisonment in each case to be appropriate, having regard to the personal circumstances of each of the defendants. Conclusion In each appeal, I would grant the Director of Public Prosecutions permission to appeal. I would allow each appeal. The sentences imposed in respect of George Stanley Harradine and Anthony Neil Harradine are set aside. In substitution, each respondent is sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months’ imprisonment, the sentence and non-parole period to commence on 5 November 2011. I agree with the orders proposed by Sulan J and with his reasons. I agree with the orders proposed by Sulan J and with his reasons.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WHITE J, NICHOLSON J

Full text does not contain this section.