R v Mason - [2005] NSWCCA 403

CITATION:
R v Mason [2005] NSWCCA 403

HEARING DATE(S): 17 October 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

17 October 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Adams J at 58; Johnson J at 59

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence appeal - robbery with offensive weapon and wounding - whether error in assessing the relevance of the applicant's objective case - whether failure to give proper weight to guilty plea

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Attorney General’s Application No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 518
Hearn [2001] NSWCCA 37
R v Fernando (1992) 76 A Crim R 58
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Morgan (2003) 57 NSWLR 533
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109

PARTIES:
The Crown
Deon Rodney Mason (Appl)

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/1039

COUNSEL:
J Dwyer (Crown)
A Francis (Appl)

SOLICITORS:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Appl)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/11/1154

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Marien DCJ

2005/1039

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
ADAMS J
JOHNSON J
MONDAY 17 OCTOBER 2005

REGINA v Deon Rodney MASON

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The applicant pleaded guilty to one count on an indictment that on 13 April 2003 at Kingsford in the State of New South Wales, being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, and in company with three unknown males did rob, Poong Nam of a mobile telephone and other personal possessions, the property of Poong Nam and immediately after the robbery did wound Poon Nam.

2 Section 98 of the Crimes Act 1900 provides a maximum penalty of twenty-five years imprisonment. The offence is also within the table to Division 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and attracts a standard non-parole period of seven years imprisonment.

3 The applicant asked that two further charges on a Form 1 be taken into account. The charges on the Form 1 were as follows:

“1. That on 13 April 2003 at Kingsford being armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, and in company with three unknown male persons, he did rob Andrew Liu of $300 in Australian currency, a mobile telephone and a set of car keys.

4 The second charge on the Form 1 was:

“That on 15 April 2003 at Hillsdale being in company with Eden Red and Mark Bentley the offender did rob Troy Campbell of certain property, namely one mobile telephone and $40 in cash, and at the time did wound Troy Campbell.”

5 The first charge on the Form 1 involved a breach of s 97(1) of the Crimes Act. The second charge involved a breach of s 98.

6 The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of eight years and six months to commence on 18 May 2003 and expire on 17 November…

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 Mason

Details

AGLC: R v Mason [2005] NSWCCA 403
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 403
Decision Date: 17 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mason, the applicant, having been convicted of robbery with an offensive weapon and causing wounding, appealed against his sentence. The applicant's objective case was that the sentence imposed was excessive and that the sentencing judge had failed to give proper weight to the mitigating factors, including the applicant's guilty plea. The Crown submitted that the sentence was appropriate and that the judge had correctly considered all relevant factors.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the relevance of the applicant's objective case and whether the judge had failed to give proper weight to the mitigating factor of the applicant's guilty plea. The Court needed to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether there was an error in the sentencing process that warranted an appeal.

The Court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in assessing the relevance of the applicant's objective case, as the judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The Court also found that the judge had given proper weight to the mitigating factor of the applicant's guilty plea. The Court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that there was no error in the sentencing process that warranted an appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

There were no further orders made by the Court in relation to this appeal. The sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was upheld as appropriate and no further action was taken.

Orders