R v Marinos - [2003] NSWCCA 136

CITATION: R v Marinos [2003] NSWCCA 136

HEARING DATE(S): 30 April 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 April 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Simpson J at 29

DECISION: 1.Application for leave to appeal granted.; 2. Non-parole period reduced to nine months, to commence on 30 August 2002 and to expire on 29 May 2003, upon which date the applicant is to be released on parole.; 3. Otherwise, appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against severity of sentence - Robbery - whether offence of bag snatching of utmost gravity - consideration to age and efforts to rehabilitate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED: Regina v Bradley NSWCCA 26 October 1993
Regina v France NSWCCA 9 July 1992
Regina v Fraser [1999] NSWCCA 212
Regina v Griggs [2000] NSWCCA 33
Regina v Hall (Unreported) NSWCCA 28 September 1995
Regina v Kingsbeer (Unreported) NSWCCA 29 July 1998
Regina v Murray (unreported) NSWCCA 11 September 1986
Regina v Otto [1999] NSWCCA 190
Regina v Ranse (Unreported) NSWCCA 8 August 1994
Regina v Redmond (1990) 47 A Crim R 180
Regina v Sweetman [2000] NSWCCA 228
Regina v Valentini (1989) 46 A Crim R 23

PARTIES :
Regina
Dennis Marinos

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60045/03

COUNSEL: L M B Lamprati (Crown)
S E O'Connor (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
D J Humphreys

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0698

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Black DCJ

- 7 -

60045/03

WOOD CJ at CL
SIMPSON J

Wednesday 30 April 2003

Regina v Dennis Marinos

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of two years and three months with a non-parole period of fifteen months imposed upon him by his Honour Judge Black QC, following his plea of guilty to an offence of robbery. That offence involved a typical bag snatch, the victim being a 56-year-old woman who was innocently walking down the street and who, as a result, was seriously frightened and traumatised by the experience.

2 The amount of cash and personal property taken was small. However, that in no way minimises the seriousness of the offence.

3 His Honour expressly took into account the applicant’s attempts to wean himself off an addiction to heroin, which had seen him progress from a period of methadone maintenance, through a Naltrexone program, to a stage where he was taking two medications, Valium and Clonidine, albeit in excess of the prescribed dosages, to ease the withdrawal symptoms which he was suffering following completion of the Naltrexone program.

4 When interviewed by police he admitted the offence, and indicated that he would probably use the proceeds of the robbery to purchase a drug other than heroin, possibly cocaine.

5 The applicant was twenty-two years of age at the time of the offence and had a minor prior record, including four convictions for shoplifting, and one conviction for possession of a knife. He had served a three month periodic detention order, following breach of a…

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 Marinos

Details

AGLC: R v Marinos [2003] NSWCCA 136
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 136
Decision Date: 30 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Marinos, the defendant was convicted of robbery and appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed. The nature of the dispute centred on the assessment of the gravity of the offence and the appropriateness of the sentence given the circumstances of the case. The court of appeal was tasked with reviewing the sentence in light of the defendant's age and his demonstrated efforts to rehabilitate.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the offence of bag snatching could be considered of the utmost gravity, warranting a severe sentence. The court also had to consider the mitigating factors presented, including the defendant's young age at the time of the offence and his subsequent efforts to reform and rehabilitate. The court examined the principles of sentencing for robbery, including the need for punishment and deterrence, as well as the potential for rehabilitation.

The court found that while robbery is a serious offence, the specific circumstances of this case did not warrant a sentence of the utmost severity. The court took into account the defendant's age, which was a significant mitigating factor, and his efforts to rehabilitate since the offence. The court determined that a lesser sentence was appropriate, reflecting both the need for punishment and the potential for the defendant to reform. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced accordingly.

Orders