R v Joe Daniel Rose - [2015] NSWDC 102

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Joe Daniel Rose [2015] NSWDC 102
Hearing dates: 18 June 2015
Decision date: 25 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Custodial sentence. For Orders see [54]

Catchwords: Armed robbery; guideline judgment
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Sydney [2004] NSWCCA 63
R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Category: Sentence
Parties: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Joe Daniel Rose (Offender)
Representation: Counsel:
L McSpedden (Crown Prosecutor)
M Lalor (Offender)

File Number(s): 14/281491
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

Introduction

The offender has pleaded guilty to an offence of armed robbery with an offensive weapon pursuant to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. It was committed on 14 September 2014 and at the time of the offence the offender was 23 years of age. He was, at that time, on conditional liberty with respect to an offence of a similar nature in the Northern Territory.
The offender was arrested on 1 October 2014 and at the time of the sentence hearing on 18 June 2015 the offender had been in custody for 251 days. He has now been in custody for 258 days.
At the time of the offending the offender had been addicted to methylamphetamine (ice) and was under the influence of that insidious drug. This matter is yet another example of the catastrophic effect that drugs have on young people in our community and the devastating effect their actions can have on other law abiding citizens as a result of their use of it.

The Facts

On the morning of Sunday 14 September 2014, the offender and his co-accused, together with another person, drove from Canberra to the nearby rural district of Bywong. They drove to the boundary fence of a property on Bungendore Road, Bywong. The co-accused remained in the vehicle, which was positioned with a direct line of sight to a residence and shed on that property. The offender entered onto the property and broke into the shed. He was carrying a serrated knife, approximately 8-9 inches long, and a small tool being a claw hammer. The residents of the property were an elderly couple. They became aware that someone was in the shed so the male resident proceeded to the shed and saw the offender. Fearing for his safety, he took hold of a metal frame and placed it between himself and the offender. The offender struck the metal frame which hit the male resident on the forehead, knocking him to the ground.
The offender told the male that he was not going to hurt him but that he wanted his guns. His behaviour was erratic, varying between extremely agitated and calm. At times 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 Joe Daniel Rose

Details

AGLC: R v Joe Daniel Rose [2015] NSWDC 102
Case: [2015] NSWDC 102
Decision Date: 25 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Joe Daniel Rose involved the appellant being charged with armed robbery. The proceedings took place in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellant contested the sentence imposed by the primary judge, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, given the principles of sentencing as outlined in the relevant case law and legislative framework. This involved assessing the severity of the crime, the appellant’s criminal history, and the deterrent and rehabilitative objectives of sentencing.

In delivering its judgment, the Court of Appeal considered the appellant’s criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the armed robbery, and the principle that sentences should be proportionate to the crime committed. The Court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the principles of sentencing, the gravity of the offence, and the appellant’s criminal history. It was held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Custodial sentence. For Orders see [54]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Joe Daniel Rose [2015] NSWDC 102
Hearing dates:	18 June 2015
Decision date:	25 June 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Custodial sentence. For Orders see [54]
Catchwords:	Armed robbery; guideline judgment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	EG v R [2015] NSWCCA 21 Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610 R v Berg [2004] NSWCCA 300 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Sydney [2004] NSWCCA 63 R v Tuala [2015] NSWCCA 8
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Joe Daniel Rose (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: L McSpedden (Crown Prosecutor) M Lalor (Offender)
File Number(s):	14/281491
Publication restriction:	Nil