Legal Research
Cases
R v Maher

R v Maher

Case [2004] NSWCCA 177 10 June 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Maher [2004] NSWCCA 177 revised - 15/12/2004

HEARING DATE(S): 16/4/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 June 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA at 1; Hidden J at 56; Kirby J at 58

DECISION: (a) Leave to appeal granted; (b) The sentences imposed by Twigg DCJ on 5 June 2003 are varied in that each is to date from 26 May 2003 and to expire on 25 May 2009. In respect of Count 2, the non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months is to commence on 26 May 2003 and to expire on 24 November 2007; (c) Otherwise, the appeal against sentence is dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Break, enter and steal - Factors enhancing seriousness - Effect upon quantum - Repeated incursions - Value of stolen property - Professional planning - Prior record - Elderly victim - Damage to property

LEGISLATION CITED: Justices Act 1902
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act

CASES CITED: Re Attorney Generals Aplication (No. 1)
R v Ponfield & Ors (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v The Queen (1969) 189 CLR 295
R v Rutter [2003] NSWCCA 306
Veen v The Queen (No. 2) (1998) 164 LCR 465
R v Hayes (1984) 1 NSWLR 740; 11 A Crim R 187, 190
R v Powell (2000) NSWCCA 108
Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58

PARTIES :
Regina
Raymond Austin Maher

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60505/03

COUNSEL: A: L Flannery
R: D M L Woodburne

SOLICITORS: A: S O'Conner
R: C K Smith

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 02/31/0286

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Twigg DCJ

CCA 60505/03
DC 02/31/0286

TOBIAS JA
HIDDEN J
KIRBY J
Thursday 10 June 2004

R v Raymond Austin MAHER

Judgment

1 TOBIAS JA: Raymond Austin Maher (the applicant) seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him by Twigg DCJ at Taree District Court on 6 June 2003.

2 On 20 August 2002, the applicant appeared before the Taree Local Court in respect of four charges to which he pleaded guilty. Pursuant to s 51A of the Justices Act 1902, he was committed for sentence to the District Court in respect of those charges. On 5 June 2003, he appeared before the sentencing judge and adhered to his pleas of guilty.

3 The four charges were:

Charge 1 : s 113(1) of the Crimes Act 1900
That Raymond Austin Maher between the 22nd day of February 2002, and the 1st day of March 2002, at Taree, in the State of New South Wales, did break and enter the dwelling house of Joan Donnelly situate at 6989 The Bucketts Way, with intent to commit a felony therein, to wit, to steal therefrom the property of the said Joan Donnelly.

Charge 2 : s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900
That Raymond Austin Maher on the 1st day of March 2002, at Taree, in the State of New South Wales, did break and enter the…

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 Maher

Details

AGLC: R v Maher [2004] NSWCCA 177
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 177
Decision Date: 10 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Maher was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the defendant, Maher, was convicted of breaking and entering a dwelling house and stealing property. The dispute centered around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Maher, given the aggravating factors surrounding the offence. The prosecution argued for a more severe sentence due to the nature of the crime, while the defence sought a lesser punishment.

The central legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Maher, considering the various aggravating factors present. These factors included the professional planning of the crime, the value of the stolen property, the repeated nature of the offence, Maher's prior criminal record, and the impact on the elderly victim. The court was tasked with balancing these factors to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence.

The High Court, in delivering its judgment, acknowledged the severity of the crime and the need for a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence. The court considered the cumulative effect of the aggravating factors, particularly the professional planning and repeated nature of the crime, which demonstrated a pattern of unlawful behaviour. The court also took into account the vulnerability of the elderly victim and the substantial damage caused to the property. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and provide an appropriate level of deterrence and denunciation. The court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the principles of proportionality and justice.

Orders