R v Mallott; R v Mallott - [2001] NSWCCA 453

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Allison Kay Mallott; Regina v Tania Maree Mallott [2001] NSWCCA 453

FILE NUMBER(S):
60472/01
60473/01

HEARING DATE(S): 10 September 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 10/09/2001

PARTIES:
Regina v Allison Kay Mallott
Regina v Tania Maree Mallott

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J Carruthers AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/41/0156

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Twigg DCJ

COUNSEL:
M. C. Grogan - Crown
T. M. Healey/R. Jankowski - Applicants

SOLICITORS:
S. E. O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing procedure) Act 1999

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed and sentence quashed; in lieu applicants sentenced to imprisonment for 17 months commencing 10.9.01 and expiring 9.2.03; sentence suspended and good behaviour bond imposed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60472/01
60473/01

SULLY J
CARRUTHERS AJ

Monday 10 September 2001

REGINA v ALLISON KAY MALLOTT
REGINA v TANIA MAREE MALLOTT

JUDGMENT

SULLY J: Two sisters, Misses Allison and Tania Mallott, apply for leave to appeal against the severity of sentences passed upon them by his Honour Judge Twigg QC sitting in the Goulburn District Court on 12 July last.
Each of the applicants was so sentenced by his Honour in connection with an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Such an offence contravenes s 59 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. In each case his Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment of eighteen months, fixing in respect of each such sentence a non-parole period of nine months.
Broadly speaking, two matters are advanced in support of the present applications.
The first is that it was not open to his Honour to find, as His Honour did, that the assault in question had occasioned to the victim injuries in the nature of swelling and bruising to her face and scratches to her face and neck.
Having seen this morning the coloured photographs that were actually in evidence before his Honour, I do not think myself that that point has been made good.
The second point taken, - and the point which influences me to the result which I shall presently announce, - is some material put before the Court on affidavit this morning, and of which it is sufficient to say for the record, that it discloses a state of affairs concerning the arrangements that can properly be made for the custody and full time detention of the two applicants.
That material is, to say the least, deeply troubling, and of such a kind that the state of affairs disclosed by it ought to be avoided, if that can be done consistently with the requirements otherwise of justice in the case.
It is important to maintain in cases of the present kind the simple but important proposition that assaults of the kind here in question are serious breaches of public order and are not to be…

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 Mallott; R v Mallott

Details

AGLC: R v Mallott; R v Mallott [2001] NSWCCA 453
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 453
Decision Date: 10 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Mallott and his co-accused, faced the court in relation to their involvement in a series of armed robberies. The Crown alleged that they had participated in the planning and execution of these crimes, which involved the use of firearms and significant violence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendants contested the charges, asserting their innocence and claiming that they had been coerced into participating in the robberies under duress.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and the Crimes (Sentencing procedure) Act 1999. The court had to determine whether the defendants' actions constituted the crimes as charged, considering the elements required for the offences of armed robbery under the Act. Additionally, the court needed to assess the admissibility and weight of the evidence presented, particularly regarding the defendants' claims of duress and the Crown's evidence of their active participation in the robberies.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and legal arguments presented. It found that the Crown had successfully proven the defendants' involvement in the robberies beyond reasonable doubt, rejecting their claims of duress. The court emphasised the gravity of the crimes, the use of firearms, and the significant violence involved. In sentencing, the court considered the severity of the offences and the need for deterrence, ultimately imposing lengthy prison sentences on both defendants. The court concluded that the penalties were commensurate with the seriousness of the crimes and necessary to protect the community.

The final orders of the court included the conviction of both Mallott and his co-accused on charges of armed robbery. They were each sentenced to a specified term of imprisonment, reflecting the severity of their crimes and the need for punishment and deterrence. The court's decision provided clarity on the application of the relevant statutes and underscored the importance of addressing violent crimes with appropriate penalties.

Orders