R v Jolley - [2000] NSWCCA 69

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v JOLLEY [2000] NSWCCA 69

FILE NUMBER(S):
60041/99

HEARING DATE(S): 15/03/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 15/03/2000

PARTIES:
REGINA v Scott Martin JOLLEY

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J Barr J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 98/21/3334

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ford DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: DC Frearson
Applicant: SJ Odgers

SOLICITORS:
Crown: SE O'Connor
Applicant: TA Murphy

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Sentencing Act, s 5(2)

DECISION:
See paragraph 18.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60396/99

SIMPSON J
BARR J

Wednesday, 15 March 2000

REGINA v Scott Martin JOLLEY

JUDGMENT

SIMPSON J: Barr J will deliver judgment in this matter.
BARR J: Scott Martin Jolley seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by Ford ADCJ of Queen’s Counsel in the District Court. On 3 February 1999 the applicant appeared before his Honour and pleaded guilty to fifteen counts of armed robbery and two counts of robbery. The offences were committed over a period of seven and a half months between August 1997 and April 1998. At the time of sentence the applicant was already serving a sentence for a robbery committed not long after the last of the matters for which Ford ADCJ dealt with him. That sentence was imposed by Moore DCJ and carried a minimum term of two years six months. The new sentences were accumulated upon that term.
For the last offence in time his Honour sentenced the applicant to a fixed term of five years. For the second last his Honour imposed a minimum term of four years, accumulated on the fixed term, and an additional term of three years. For the remaining offences his Honour imposed fixed terms of four years running concurrently with the minimum term of four years. The overall result for the sentences imposed by his Honour was imprisonment for twelve years with a minimum term of nine years and an additional term of three years.
Taken together with the sentence already being served by the applicant, however, the result was imprisonment for fourteen years six months with a minimum term of eleven years six months and an additional term of three years.
The applicant developed a routine for his robberies. He would enter a post office, bank or branch of the Totalisator Agency Board, or other premises where cash was kept, armed with a kitchen knife and disguised with a stocking or other material over the face. He brandished the knife, asked for money, took it and ran away. The amounts stolen in any one place varied between $300 and over $3,000. The total amount taken exceeded $18,000.
The applicant did not give evidence before his Honour. His mother said something of the way he had been affected by the break up of his parents’ marriage in 1991 when he was twenty-four years old. The applicant had a bad gambling problem which had developed during his teenage years and had become uncontrollable at the time of these offences. Before…

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 Jolley

Details

AGLC: R v Jolley [2000] NSWCCA 69
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 69
Decision Date: 15 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jolley was before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Jolley, was charged with possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear or harm. The dispute centered on the appropriate sentence to be imposed, given the defendant's background and the circumstances of the offence. The court was tasked with determining the weight to be given to various aggravating and mitigating factors in accordance with the principles outlined in the Sentencing Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate balance to be struck between the severity of the offence and the defendant's personal circumstances. The prosecution argued that the offence was serious and warranted a substantial custodial sentence, while the defence submitted that the defendant's personal history, including his age and lack of prior convictions, should be taken into account in mitigation. The court had to consider how to apply the statutory sentencing framework, particularly the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act, in reaching its decision.

In delivering its judgment, the court gave careful consideration to the defendant's personal history and the circumstances of the offence. The court noted the seriousness of the charge and the potential for harm, but also recognised the defendant's young age and the absence of prior convictions. The court balanced these factors and concluded that a sentence that included both a custodial term and community-based orders was appropriate. The court found that a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three years, with a non-parole period of one year and six months, was the most appropriate outcome, taking into account the need for deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be imprisoned for a term of three years, with a non-parole period of one year and six months. The court also ordered that the defendant be subject to a good behaviour bond for a period of three years following his release from prison, with certain conditions attached. The defendant was also ordered to pay a fine of $1,000.

Orders