R v London - [2000] NSWCCA 165

CITATION: R v LONDON [2000] NSWCCA 165

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60139/99

HEARING DATE(S): 5 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Darren Robert London

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 19

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0026; 98/11/0027

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : English DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: LMB Lamprati
Appellant PM Winch

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: -

DECISION: Leave to appeal is refused

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60139/99

HULME J
CARRUTHERS AJ

Friday, 5 May 2000

REGINA -v-Darren Robert LONDON
JUDGMENT

1    HULME J : On 19 March 1999 Judge English sentenced the applicant, who pleaded guilty in respect of two offences, namely:

(1) That on 27 October 199 at Glebe..., being then armed with an offensive weapon, namely a firearm, did assault Orazio Racit with intent to rob him and at the time of such assault did wound the said Orazio Raciti.

(2) That on 6 November 1996 at Sefton..., being then armed with an offensive weapon, namely a firearm, did rob Christopher Mark Finch of certain property, namely certain monies the property of Shirone Holdings Pty Ltd trading as the Sefton Hotel and at the time of such robbery did wound the said Christopher Mark Finch.

2 Pursuant to Section 98 of the Crimes Act, each of these offences rendered the applicant liable to a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

3    In respect of the first count, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum term of twelve years commencing on 11 November 1996 and an additional term of four years. In respect of the second count, the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of eight years also commencing on 11 November 1996. In deciding to impose these penalties, her Honour noted that the crimes were separate and deserving of cumulative penalties. She decided, however, not to "enter into an exercise of accumulation" and fixed an overall head sentence reflecting the applicant's total criminality.

4    In arriving at the sentence which she did, her Honour took into account something over 20 matters on two Form 1's. These included five counts of armed robbery, including two whilst armed with a dangerous weapon and two accompanied by wounding; one of assault with intent to rob whilst armed with a dangerous weapon; one of possessing a shortened firearm, and at least two of possession of an unlicensed pistol.

5    Very briefly, the circumstances of the first offence were that while in the shop of a second hand dealer at Annandale, the applicant produced a gun and demanded money. In the office of the premises, Mr Raciti said there was no money there and opened the till to demonstrate that fact. After more demand and responses to similar effect, the applicant said, "Don't stuff me around. I'll shoot you in the leg first and then I'll shoot you in the head and I'll kill you." He then lowered his gun, shot…

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 London

Details

AGLC: R v London [2000] NSWCCA 165
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 165
Decision Date: 5 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v London, the applicant, Darren Robert London, was appealing against the sentence imposed by Judge English in the District Court for two counts of armed robbery and assault. The primary legal issues in this case were whether the trial judge had given sufficient weight to the applicant's subjective circumstances, whether she had appropriately considered his criminal history, whether she had failed to provide reasons for imposing a fixed term of imprisonment, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine if the applicant's grounds for appeal had merit and whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the grounds of appeal and found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate given the seriousness of the crimes and the applicant's extensive criminal history. The Court highlighted that the subjective circumstances of the offender could not outweigh the objective circumstances of the offence, and that the applicant's criminality warranted a severe sentence. The Court also noted that the trial judge had taken into account the applicant's subjective circumstances, such as his background and mental health issues, in addition to his criminal history. The Court concluded that the sentence was not disproportionate to the applicant's offending, and that the appeal was hopeless.

Hulme J, delivering the judgment of the Court, noted that the trial judge had correctly imposed a concurrent sentence for the second count, which meant that the applicant had not been disadvantaged by the consideration of the criminality inherent in that offence. The Court of Criminal Appeal agreed with the trial judge's assessment of the appropriate sentence, and found that the applicant's subjective circumstances did not warrant a lesser sentence. The Court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal.

Orders