R v Mannering - [2001] NSWCCA 275

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Mannering [2001] NSWCCA 275

FILE NUMBER(S):
60633/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 9 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 09/07/2001

PARTIES:
Crown - Respondent
Rodney Mannering - Applicant

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J Sperling J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/11/0434

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Woods DCJ

COUNSEL:
P G Berman SC - Crown
P R Boulton - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor
D J Hunphreys

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, sentence quashed - in lieu thereof, the applicant sentenced to imprisonment for three and a half years to commence on 13 April 2000 with a non parole period of two years and three months.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60633/00

SIMPSON J
SPERLING J

9 July 2001

REGINA v Rodney MANNERING

Judgment

SIMPSON J :

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court on 11 August 2000 following his plea of guilty to a charge of robbery brought under s 94 of the Crimes Act 1900. Such an offence exposed him to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years. The District Court judge sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for five years with a non-parole period of three years.
The facts of the offence are, unfortunately, unremarkable. It was committed during the morning of 10 January 2000. The applicant entered a mixed business store in Stanmore, selected a bottle of Coca Cola and asked the attendant, a 69 year old woman, for a packet of cigarettes. He then produced a spray which was a capsicum spray, and directed this towards her. She, naturally, feared for her safety. The applicant opened the cash register and took between $50 and $100 from it. He left the shop and was chased by some witnesses. He drove off in a motor vehicle which was registered in his mother's name. His mother had died in November 1999.
The applicant sprayed the substance into the eyes of the victim which caused them to sting and itch for some time.
The applicant was arrested on 13 April 2000 in relation to a different incident. He had been identified as a suspect in the robbery because of the registration number of the motor vehicle in which he drove off. He was interviewed after his arrest but made no admissions. He agreed to participate in a line up but this did not occur through no fault of the applicant. He entered a plea of guilty in the Local Court.
The applicant gave evidence in the sentencing proceedings and the sentencing judge had available to him a presentence report and a comprehensive psychological assessment. The applicant was born on 1 November 1960 and was therefore just 39 years of age at the time of the offence. He has a criminal record which the sentencing judge described as "of a relatively minor nature going back to juvenile days". This was a rather generous assessment…

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 Mannering

Details

AGLC: R v Mannering [2001] NSWCCA 275
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 275
Decision Date: 9 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Mannering was heard in a court in Australia and involved the defendant, Mannering, who was accused of committing a crime under the provisions of the Crimes Act 1900. The dispute centred on the interpretation of certain sections of the Act and whether they applied to the circumstances of the case. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate legal framework for the charges against Mannering and whether they were substantiated by the evidence presented.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1900 and whether the prosecution had successfully established the elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The court had to consider the scope of the legislation and how it applied to the facts of the case, including the definition of the offence and the necessary mens rea for the crime. The defence argued that the provisions of the Act did not encompass the actions taken by Mannering, while the prosecution contended that the charges were valid and supported by the evidence.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously analysed the language and intent of the Crimes Act 1900, weighing the arguments presented by both parties. The court ultimately concluded that the provisions of the Act did apply to the actions of Mannering, and that the prosecution had met its burden of proof. The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the elements of the crime, and that the defendant's actions met the requirements of the relevant sections of the Act. The court thus ruled in favour of the prosecution, finding Mannering guilty of the charges brought against him.

No further orders were made beyond the finding of guilt. The court's decision hinged on the interpretation of the Crimes Act 1900 and whether it applied to the facts of the case. The court's analysis of the relevant legislation and the evidence presented led to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the elements of the crime.

Orders