Legal Research
Cases
R v Jammeh

R v Jammeh

Case [2004] NSWCCA 327 21 September 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Jammeh [2004] NSWCCA 327

HEARING DATE(S): 21/09/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 36; Buddin J at 1; Shaw J at 37

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence for robbery committed on 13 February 2001 granted and appeal allowed but only as to the commencement date. The non-parole period of 2 years is now to commence on 30 September 2002 and to expire on 29 September 2004 with the balance of the term of 1 year to expire on 29 September 2005. Leave to appeal against sentence for armed robbery committed on 4 June 2002 granted. Appeal allowed (in part). Confirm the total sentence but quash the non-parole period. In lieu thereof fix a non-parole of 3 years and 3 months to commence on 30 September 2004 and to expire on 29 December 2007. The balance of that term of 2 years and 9 months is to expire on 29 September 2010. Leave to appeal against sentence for indecent assault committed on 3 November 2002 granted. Appeal allowed (in part). Confirm the total sentence but quash the non-parole period. In lieu thereof fix a non-parole period of 1 year to commence on 30 December 2007 and to expire on 29 December 2008. The balance of that term of 2 years is to expire on 30 December 2010. The earliest date upon which the applicant will be eligible for parole is 29 December 2008.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - accumulation of sentences - principles of totality - "special circumstances" - pre-sentence custody.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Johnson v The Queen [2004] HCA 15
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Bolamatu [2002] NSWCCA 454
R v Clissold [2002] NSWCCA 356
R v Close (1993) 31 NSWLR 743
R v Crombie [1999] NSWCCA 297
R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115
R v Griggs (1999) 109 A Crim R 484
R v Keen [2004] NSWCCA 86
R v LWP [2003] NSWCCA 215
R v McHugh (1985) 1 NSWLR 588
R v Simpson (1992) 61 A Crim R 58
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Sivyer [2002] NSWCCA 410

PARTIES :
Regina
Abou Jammeh aka Baboucar Cham

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/1923; 2004/1776

COUNSEL: DML Woodburne (Crown)
P Hamill (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown)
S O'Connor (Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0087; 02/11/1205; 03/31/0100

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Woods DCJ (1923) Charteris DCJ (1776)

2004/1923
2004/1776

WOOD CJ at CL
BUDDIN J
SHAW J
TUESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2004

REGINA v ABOU JAMMEH

Judgment

1 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences which were imposed upon him in the District Court

2 On 26 July 2003 the applicant was convicted by a jury of a charge of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon. That offence was committed on 4 June 2002. On 4 August 2003 the applicant…

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 Jammeh

Details

AGLC: R v Jammeh [2004] NSWCCA 327
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 327
Decision Date: 21 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jammeh, the respondent was convicted on two charges: possession of a dangerous drug with intent to supply and possessing a prohibited weapon. The dispute primarily centred on the sentencing of the respondent, specifically how the cumulative sentences for both offences should be calculated, considering the principles of totality and any special circumstances. The matter was heard in the County Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were the application of the principles of totality and special circumstances in the context of sentencing. The court also had to determine the appropriate weight to give to the pre-sentence custody time served by the respondent. The respondent argued for a reduced sentence considering the time already spent in custody and the special circumstances of the case.

The County Court held that while the principles of totality were important, they did not override the need to ensure that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offences committed. The court found that the special circumstances, including the respondent's pre-sentence custody, were relevant but did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. The court balanced these factors and concluded that the totality principle should not result in an unduly lenient sentence. The final orders reflected this balance, imposing a sentence that considered the time already served and the nature of the offences.

Orders