Legal Research
Cases
R v Horne

R v Horne

Case [1999] NSWCCA 391 6 December 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v. HORNE [1999] NSWCCA 391

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60358 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 6 December 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 December 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
HORNE, Sharon Michelle

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1, 15; Newman J at 21; Greg James J at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/3108

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Moore, DCJ.

COUNSEL: Crown: C.K. Maxwell, QC.
Resp: G.J. Bellew

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Resp: Fox O'Brien

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - inadequacy of sentence - Crown appeal - discretion - guideline judgment - necessity to consider.

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
King [1999] NSWCCA 16
Menzies [1999] NSWCCA 222
Chmait [1999] NSWCCA 217
Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60358 of 1999 CORAM: MASON, P.
NEWMAN, J.
GREG JAMES, J.

MONDAY 6 DECEMBER 1999

REGINA v. SHARON MICHELLE HORNE
JUDGMENT
1 MASON, P: I will ask Greg James, J. to deliver the first judgment. 2 GREG JAMES, J: An appeal against an asserted inadequacy of sentence has been brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the sentence imposed upon Sharon Michelle Horne in the District Court of New South Wales at Campbelltown following her plea of guilty to one count of armed robbery under s.97 of the Crimes Act 1900. 3 The respondent was sentenced to a total sentence of 25 months and seven days penal servitude to commence on 12 November 1998 and comprising a minimum term of seven months and seven days and an additional term of 18 months. 4 The short facts appear in the remarks of the sentencing judge as follows:-

"At about 11.06 pm on 11 November 1998, the respondent together with her co-offender, Daniel Willy Marks, drove to the vicinity of the BP Service Station at 930 King Georges Road, South Hurstville. They were travelling in a Holden Kingswood sedan registration number LFU 783.

After observing the service station for some time, they parked their car some 300 metres down a side street and walked to the service station.

At the service station, the respondent maintained a position at the door to the shop area while Marks approached the victim, Nigel Cameron Goghlan, who was standing behind the counter. Marks was armed with a large chef's knife which he pointed and waved towards the victim when demanding money and cigarettes.

An approximate sum of $44 was handed over to Marks, together with some four packets of Horizon cigarettes.

Both the respondent and Marks then left the service station.

At the time of the robbery, Marks had on a back balaclava and the respondent had on a beige coloured one.

At about 12.05 am on 12 November 1998, police observed a Holden sedan parked on Heathcote Road, Heathcote. Upon approach, they observed the respondent seated in the driver seat and Marks seated in the passenger seat. Police located a large quantity of coins, three kitchen knives, four packets of…

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 Horne

Details

AGLC: R v Horne [1999] NSWCCA 391
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 391
Decision Date: 6 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Horne, was convicted of several serious offences including armed robbery and was sentenced to imprisonment. The Crown, dissatisfied with the leniency of the sentence, appealed to the court. The central issue was whether the original sentence was inadequate and if the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion in sentencing.

The court considered the necessity of a guideline judgment to address the discretion used in sentencing. It emphasised the importance of adhering to legal principles when determining an appropriate sentence. The appeal court assessed the seriousness of the crimes, the need for deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the offender. The court concluded that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the gravity of the crimes and the need for a sentence that reflected community standards.

As a result, the appeal was upheld, and the original sentence was deemed inadequate. The court ordered a resentencing hearing, instructing the trial judge to reconsider the sentence in light of the guideline judgment and the need for an appropriate punishment that aligns with the gravity of the crimes committed. This decision underscored the importance of a balanced and principled approach to sentencing in criminal cases.

Orders