R v Jared Deane Paterson - [2010] NSWCCA 233

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Jared Deane PATERSON [2010] NSWCCA 233

HEARING DATE(S): 5 May 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 October 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Rothman J at 2; Barr AJ at 69

DECISION: (i) The appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentence – Crown appeal – armed robbery and armed robbery with wounding – concurrent non-parole periods – manifest inadequacy – compelling subjective circumstances – sentence within range available to sentencing judge – no less severe sentence warranted

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Attorney-General's Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) [2002] NSWCCA 518; (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Clare v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 30; (2008) 181 A Crim R 450
Johnson v R [2004] HCA 15; (2004) 78 ALJR 616
Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90
R v Tory [2006] NSWCCA 18
Veen v The Queen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; (1988) 164 CLR 465

PARTIES: Regina (Applicant)
Jared Deane Paterson (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2009/59066

COUNSEL: M Cinque (Applicant)
R Burgess (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/59066

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Murrell DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14 December 2009

2009/59066

HODGSON JA
ROTHMAN J
BARR AJ
14 OCTOBER 2010

R v Jared Deane PATERSON

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: I agree with Rothman J.

2 ROTHMAN J: The Crown appeals the sentence imposed on the Respondent, Jared Dean Paterson, in the District Court on 14 December 2009.

3 Mr Paterson pleaded guilty to two counts on the indictment for which he was charged on 1 December 2009: the first count charged armed robbery that occurred on 6 June 2009, in contravention of s 97 of the Crimes Act 1900; and the second count charged armed robbery with wounding that occurred on 22 June 2009, in contravention of s 98 of the Crimes Act. Mr Paterson also disclosed on a Form 1, to the second charge, an offence of break, enter and steal which occurred on 30 May 2009.

4 In relation to the first offence, Murrell SC DCJ sentenced Mr Paterson to a non-parole period of 3 years’ imprisonment to commence on 23 June 2009 and expire on 22 June 2012, with a balance of term of 12 months to expire on 22 June 2013.

5 For the second offence, taking into account the Form 1 offence, her Honour sentenced Mr Paterson to a non-parole period of 2 years’ imprisonment to commence on 23 June 2010 and expire on 22 June 2012,…

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 Jared Deane Paterson

Details

AGLC: R v Jared Deane Paterson [2010] NSWCCA 233
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 233
Decision Date: 14 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jared Deane Paterson, was convicted of armed robbery and armed robbery with wounding, resulting in the victim being shot in the back. The trial judge sentenced Paterson to a total of 18 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years. The Crown sought to appeal the sentence on the basis of its inadequacy. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the severity of the offences, the protection of the community, and the need for general deterrence.

The court needed to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the compelling subjective circumstances were sufficient to justify a more severe sentence. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was within the range available to the sentencing judge and if a less severe sentence was warranted. The appeal hinged on the application of these principles and the court's interpretation of the appropriate sentence for the crimes committed.

The Court of Appeal found that while the offences were serious, the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court noted that the appellant's involvement was less central than that of the co-offenders, and the trial judge had considered this in the sentencing process. The court found that the sentence was within the range available to the sentencing judge and that no less severe sentence was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal.

Orders