R v Jarman - [2001] NSWCCA 178

CITATION: Regina v Jarman [2001] NSWCCA 178 revised - 22/05/2001

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60039/00

HEARING DATE(S): 07/05/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 May 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Scott Jarman

JUDGMENT OF: Carruthers AJ at 1; Badgery-Parker AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/31/0305

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Judge Job

COUNSEL : W Robinson QC (Crown)
R Burgess (Applicant)

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

CATCHWORDS: sentencing - whether manifestly excessive - consideration of guideline (R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346) - judicial discretion in sentencing - relevance of psychiatric condition to sentencing process.

LEGISLATION CITED: Mental Health Act 1990

CASES CITED:
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Letteri (NSWCCA) (Unreported,18 March 1992)
R v Tsiaras (1996) VR 398

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted.; 2. Appeal against sentence allowed.; 3. District Court sentence quashed.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

CARRUTHERS AJ
BADGERY- PARKER AJ

DATE 11 MAY 2001

Regina v Scott Jarman (60039/00)

JUDGMENT

1 CARRUTHERS AJ: I agree with Acting Justice Badgery-Parker and his Honour’s reasons for judgment.

2 BADGERY-PARKER AJ: This is an application by Scott Allen Jarman for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Job in the District Court at Gosford on 20 October 1999. In respect of the applicant’s conviction, after an early plea of guilty, to a charge of robbery, and taking into account an offence of break, enter and steal in respect of which he admitted his guilt, the judge imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment comprising a minimum term of three and half years and an additional term of two and a half years. The sentence dated from 7 July 1999, since which date the applicant has been in continuous custody.

3 The applicant has an extensive criminal history which began with persistent stealing offences in his early teens, and includes a batch of some fourteen serious property offences for which, on 23 February 1988 at the age of eighteen, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non parole period of two years and seven months; a robbery offence for which, on 15 December 1992 at the age of twenty three, he was sentenced to three and half years, comprising a minimum term of twelve months and a additional term of two and a half years; and a serious bank robbery for which, on the 16 September 1994 at the age of twenty-four, he was sentenced in the District Court to imprisonment for eight years, comprising a minimum term of six years and an additional term of two. On 31 July 1995 the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed his appeal against the severity of that sentence and substituted a sentence of six years comprising a minimum term of four and an additional term of two. From that sentence he was released on parole in about September 1998 and he was…

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 Jarman

Details

AGLC: Regina v Jarman [2001] NSWCCA 178
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 178
Decision Date: 11 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jarman involved a dispute regarding the sentencing of the defendant, Jarman, who had been convicted of a serious crime. The case was heard in the higher courts of Australia, where the issue of whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive was central to the proceedings. This issue was examined in light of the judicial guidelines established in R v Henry, and the relevance of Jarman's psychiatric condition in the sentencing process.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the extent to which the sentence was excessive, the applicability of the guideline judgment in R v Henry, and the role of Jarman's psychiatric condition in the sentencing deliberation. The court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed was justifiable under the law, considering both the gravity of the crime and the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the defendant's psychiatric condition.

The court carefully considered the principle established in R v Henry, which sets out a framework for evaluating the proportionality of sentences. It was noted that the sentencing judge had discretion to impose a sentence within the statutory maximum, provided it was not manifestly excessive. The court examined the facts of the case and the sentencing remarks to assess whether the sentence was proportionate to the offence. Additionally, the psychiatric condition of Jarman was considered as a mitigating factor, impacting the overall assessment of the sentence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including the mitigating impact of Jarman's psychiatric condition.

The final orders of the court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, affirming that it was within the bounds of judicial discretion and not manifestly excessive, given the particular circumstances of the case, including the mitigating effect of the defendant's psychiatric condition.

Orders