COUNSEL: DC Frearson (Crown) R J Perrington (Respondent Kollas) A C Haesler (Applicant Mitchell)
SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown) Humphreys and Feather (Kollas) D J Humphreys (Mitchell)
CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Appeals against inadequacy of sentence - Enter dwelling with intent to commit a serius indictable offence (affray) in circumstantces of aggravation - plea of guilty - Crown appeal allowed (Kollas) - Appeal dismissed (Mitchell).
DECISION: Kollas: Crown appeal allowed. The sentence below is quashed. In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for five years and six months, to date from 16 March 2002, and to expire on 15 September 2007. Sentnece to be served partially concurrently with, and partially cumulatively upon, the pre-existing sentence. I would fix a non parole period of three years and three months to date from 16 March 2002 and to expire on 15 June 2005, that being the earliest date on which the respondent would be released to parole. Mitchell: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT:
- 13 -
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60421/02 60511/02
MEAGHER JA WOOD CJ at CL GREG JAMES J
Tuesday 19 November 2002
Regina v Robbie Ashley Kollas Regina v Nathan James Mitchell
Judgment
MEAGHER JA: We are in a position to give judgment. Mr Justice Wood will give the first judgment.
.
WOOD CJ AT CL: The Crown appeal against leniency in the matter of Kollas, and the application by Mitchell for leave to appeal against severity, arise out of the same incident. They are linked in so far as Mitchell relies upon an alleged disparity in the sentences imposed at first instance. It is accordingly convenient to deal with them together.
In the case of Kollas, he was arraigned on indictment, on 14 August 2001, in respect of a count of robbery in company and, in the alternative, in respect of a count of enter a dwelling house with intent to commit a serious indictable offence (affray) in circumstances of aggravation (armed with an offensive instrument). His plea of guilty to the alternative count was accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment.
The sentence imposed upon by his Honour Judge Coorey, in the District Court, on 16 July 2002, was one of imprisonment for four years to commence on 16 September 2001, and to expire on 15 September 2005, with a non-parole period of two years and four months similarly to commence on 16 September 2001 and to expire on 15 January 2004.
This sentence was partially concurrent with, and partially cumulative upon, a pre-existing sentence,…
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 Kollas and Mitchell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Kollas and Mitchell [2002] NSWCCA 491
Case
[2002] NSWCCA 491
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The defendants, Kollas and Mitchell, appealed against their sentences for entering a dwelling with intent to commit an affray, a serious indictable offence, in circumstances of aggravation. The Crown sought an appeal against the sentence imposed on Kollas, claiming it was inadequate, while Mitchell appealed against his sentence, arguing it was excessive. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues were whether the sentences were appropriate given the severity of the offence and the specific circumstances in which it was committed.
The court examined the principles of sentencing for serious indictable offences, particularly focusing on the role of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. It considered the defendants' guilty pleas, the nature of the crime, and the aggravating factors involved, such as the use of weapons and the impact on the victims. In the case of Kollas, the court found the original sentence did not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the offence or serve the purpose of general deterrence. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was increased. For Mitchell, the court concluded that the original sentence was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors, and thus dismissed the appeal.
The High Court determined that the original sentence for Kollas was inadequate and increased it to reflect the gravity of the offence and its circumstances. The court found no grounds to alter Mitchell's sentence, affirming the trial judge's decision as reasonable and proportionate. This outcome underscores the importance of considering the totality of circumstances in sentencing, particularly in cases involving serious indictable offences. The final orders were that Kollas's sentence was increased, and Mitchell's appeal was dismissed.