R v Maxfield - [2005] NSWCCA 136

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Maxfield [2005] NSWCCA 136

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/2905

HEARING DATE(S): 30 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 30/03/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Robert Paul Maxfield

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J Howie J Hall J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/21/0372

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Delaney DCJ

COUNSEL:
D. Frearson SC (Crown)
P.M. Winch (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)
S.E. O'Connor (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SENTENCE
MULTIPLE OFFENCES OF ROBBERY WHILST ARMED WITH OFFENSIVE WEAPON
SETTING OF NON-PAROLE PERIOD
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
VERY SMALL EFFECT ON OVERALL SENTENCES
NO ERROR BY SENTENCING JUDGE
NO LESSER SENTENCE WARRANTED

LEGISLATION CITED:
s 44 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION:
APPEAL DISMISSED

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2004/2905
GROVE J
HOWIE J
HALL J
Wednesday 30 March 2005

REGINA v ROBERT PAUL MAXFIELD

Judgment

GROVE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed upon him by Delaney DCJ in Parramatta District Court. Following pleas of guilty the applicant was sentenced upon seven counts of armed robbery with an offensive weapon. He asked to be taken into account pursuant to a Form 1, three further offences of armed robbery with an offensive weapon and two offences of assault with intent to rob with an offensive weapon.
Sentences were imposed on 20 May 2004. The applicant was in custody serving a balance of parole in respect of a previous conviction, that balance expiring shortly thereafter on 28 May 2004.
His Honour constructed sentences in the following fashion. On two of the counts the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of four years commencing on 20 May 2004 and expiring on 19 May 2008, to be served concurrently. On two further counts, to fixed terms of four years commencing on 12 November 2004 and expiring on 11 November 2008, to be served concurrently. On a further count to imprisonment for a fixed term of four years commencing on 20 May 2005 and expiring on 19 May 2009. On a further count, to imprisonment for a fixed term of five years commencing on 20 May 2005 and expiring on 19 May 2010. On the final count, taking into account the matters on Form 1, to imprisonment for seven years and six months commencing on 20 August 2005, with a non-parole period of five years and six months commencing on that date and expiring on 19 May 2010.
Thus, taking the earliest date of custody referable to these offences, it can be stated that the impositions involved an effective total term of eight years nine months, with a non-parole period of six years and nine months.
The applicant relies upon a single ground, asserting that his Honour erred with regard to the relationship between the length of the aggregate head sentence and the aggregate non-parole period. “Aggregate” is a reference to the effective sentence just mentioned.
The argument of the applicant is focussed upon s 44 of the Crimes (Sentencing…

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 Maxfield

Details

AGLC: R v Maxfield [2005] NSWCCA 136
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 136
Decision Date: 30 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Maxfield, was convicted of multiple counts of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon. The sentencing phase of the trial was before the Court of Appeal, where the primary issue was the setting of a non-parole period for the sentences imposed. Maxfield argued that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently considered the special circumstances of each offence, which would have warranted a lesser sentence. The appeal centred on whether the judge erred in setting the non-parole periods and whether a lesser sentence would have been appropriate.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge had failed to adequately weigh the special circumstances of each offence. It was noted that each offence involved the use of an offensive weapon and was committed against different victims. Despite the argument that the special circumstances should have had a significant impact on the non-parole periods, the court found that the judge had indeed considered these factors. The court held that the special circumstances had a very small effect on the overall sentences imposed and found no error in the sentencing judge's approach. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences, including the non-parole periods, were upheld.

The reasoning of the court was that, while special circumstances should be considered, they did not necessitate a lesser sentence in this case. The court found that the judge had appropriately balanced the seriousness of the offences with the special circumstances, resulting in a fair and proportionate sentence. Given the nature of the crimes and the use of an offensive weapon, the sentences were deemed appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences, including the non-parole periods, were confirmed.

Orders