R v Jennar - [2014] NSWCCA 331

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jennar [2014] NSWCCA 331
Hearing dates: 1 December 2014
Decision date: 19 December 2014
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
McCallum J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
Crown appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal against sentence - multiple armed robberies - shoot with intent to murder - significant objective seriousness - Court invited by Crown to view CCTV footage - waste of time - motive related to drug addiction - no error in concluding that crimes not motivated principally by greed - aggregate sentence - principle of totality - no utility in assessment of overall sentence in singling out one component and regarding balance as being referrable to remainder - sentence not manifestly inadequate
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115; 195 A Crim R 38
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Applicant)
Ryker Scott Jennar (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms V Lydiard (Crown)
Ms A Francis (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Legal Aid NSW

File Number(s): 2011/381712
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2014-05-01 00:00:00

Before:

Hanley SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2011/381712

Judgment

LEEMING JA: I agree with R A Hulme J.

McCALLUM J: I agree with R A Hulme J.

R A HULME J: The Crown appeals pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) against a sentence imposed in the District Court at Parramatta on 1 May 2014 by his Honour Judge Hanley.

Ryker Scott Jennar (the respondent) was sentenced for five very serious offences, all contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Their details appear below. Hanley DCJ imposed an aggregate sentence of imprisonment for 16 years with a non-parole period of 12 years with effect from 21 November 2011.

The Crown has also appealed against the asserted inadequacy of sentence(s) imposed upon a co-offender, Joel Douglas Barton. He was sentenced by the same judge four days after the Registrar fixed the hearing date for the present appeal. The Court was told that the Crown had not taken steps to have the hearings of both matters joined because Mr Barton is pursuing an appeal against conviction. It is obviously desirable that the Crown's assertion of inadequate sentencing in both matters be heard and considered at the same time by the same judges. It would be unfair, however, to delay the present respondent's matter until the other matter was ready to be listed for hearing.

Offences, facts and indicative sentences

Robbery whilst armed - Carrington Post Office on 11 June 2010 (s 97(1) - maximum penalty 20 years)

At about 1.00pm the respondent and another male…

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 Jennar

Details

AGLC: R v Jennar [2014] NSWCCA 331
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 331
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jennar involved the appellant who was sentenced for multiple armed robberies, one of which involved shooting with intent to murder. The appeal was brought by the Crown against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant had a history of drug addiction, which was a factor in the commission of these crimes. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in concluding that the crimes were not principally motivated by greed and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court was also asked to consider the application of the principle of totality in assessing the aggregate sentence.

In determining these issues, the court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the crimes were not principally motivated by greed, as the motive was clearly linked to the appellant's drug addiction. The court also held that the aggregate sentence was not manifestly inadequate, noting that the principle of totality meant that the balance of the sentence was not solely referrable to one component of the crimes. The court found that the sentence reflected the significant objective seriousness of the crimes and appropriately took into account the appellant's drug addiction as a mitigating factor. The appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The appellant's sentence was upheld, and the convictions were affirmed.

Orders