R v Jewell - [2006] SASC 128

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal: Application)
R v JEWELL
[2006] SASC 128
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Bleby and The Honourable Justice White)
9 May 2006
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW
Appeal against sentence - appellant convicted in the District Court of aggravated robbery - whether the trial Judge erred in failing to suspend a sentence for robbery having regard to the personal circumstances of the appellant - no error of law made out - appeal dismissed.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 38, referred to.

R v JEWELL
[2006] SASC 128
Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Bleby and White JJ

DOYLE CJ: Mr Jewell appeals against a sentence imposed by the District Court. The issue raised by the appeal is whether the Judge erred in not suspending the sentence that he imposed. No criticism was made of the head sentence or of the non-parole period.
Mr Jewell pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery, being robbery in the company of another and armed with an offensive weapon. That offence attracts a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. He pleaded guilty to a charge of theft. The theft involved the taking of number plates from a motor car, the purpose being to use them on the motor car used in connection with the robbery. This offence attracts a maximum punishment of imprisonment for ten years.
The Judge imposed an unusually low sentence of imprisonment for 2 years 11 months, with a non-parole period of 17 months.
In company with Ms Irvine, Mr Jewell carried out a robbery at a service station in Naracoorte. Mr Jewell threatened the attendant with a machete. Ms Irvine had an iron bar. They were assisted by Mr McLister, who drove them to the service station and subsequently from the scene.
The details of the offending conduct are not important for present purposes. But it is relevant to note that this was not a spur of the moment offence. It was planned over the course of about 24 hours. The preparations involved obtaining the weapons that were used, buying stockings to use as a disguise, and stealing the number plates for use on the getaway car.
The robbery must have been a very frightening experience for the unfortunate service station attendant. Her victim impact statement indicates that the experience has had a devastating effect on her. She has suffered grievously. Her life, and that of her husband and family, has been turned upside down by the experience.
Mr Jewell was sentenced on the basis that at the time of the offences he was on a “drug binge”, and had been for several months. He was smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol and using amphetamines. The robbery was committed to get money to buy more drugs. My impression is that each of the three offenders played an…

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 Jewell

Details

AGLC: R v Jewell [2006] SASC 128
Case: [2006] SASC 128
Decision Date: 9 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jewell involves an appeal by the appellant against their conviction and sentence for aggravated robbery. The District Court found the appellant guilty and sentenced them accordingly. The appellant sought to appeal the decision, arguing that the trial judge had erred in not suspending the sentence for robbery, given the personal circumstances of the appellant.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to suspend the sentence constituted an error of law, warranting an appeal. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have taken into account their personal circumstances, which would have warranted a suspended sentence. The respondent, the Crown, contended that no error of law had occurred.

The court considered the grounds for appeal and the nature of the sentence imposed. It determined that the trial judge had correctly applied the law and had appropriately considered the appellant's personal circumstances. The court found no error of law in the trial judge's decision and dismissed the appeal. The reasoning was that the trial judge had exercised their discretion in accordance with the relevant legal principles and had given due consideration to the appellant's personal circumstances.

As a result of the court's determination, the appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence of the District Court were upheld. The court did not order any further proceedings or modifications to the sentence.

Orders