R v McRae - [2005] NSWCCA 13

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v McRae [2005] NSWCCA 13

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/2407

HEARING DATE(S): 4/2/05

JUDGMENT DATE: 25/02/2005

PARTIES:
Regina (Respondent)
Steven Ronald McRae (Applicant)

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J Bell J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/21/3170

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sides DCJ

COUNSEL:
B Knox SC (Crown)
H Dhanji (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
SE O'Connor (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION:
Time for filing the notice of appeal extended to 21 September 2004
Application for leave to appeal granted
Appeal be dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2004/2407
DUNFORD J
BELL J
Friday 25 February 2005

Regina v Steven Ronald McRae

Judgment

DUNFORD J: I agree with Bell J.
BELL J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on the applicant in the District Court at Campbelltown by his Honour Judge Sides QC (the Judge) on 23 February 2004.
The applicant was convicted of six counts of break, enter and steal contrary to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The Judge took into account six further offences of break, enter and steal and one offence of attempted break, enter and steal on a Form 1 pursuant to s 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (the Sentencing Procedure Act).
On counts two to six, the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of four and a half years’ imprisonment. A non-parole period of three years was specified. These sentences were backdated to commence on 24 September 2001. For the offence charged in count one, for which the further seven offences were taken onto account, the applicant was sentenced to a term of seven years’ imprisonment to date from 24 March 2003. A non-parole period of four years was specified. In the aggregate, the applicant was sentenced to a term of eight and a half years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years commencing on 24 September 2001.
The maximum penalty for an offence contrary to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act is imprisonment for fourteen years.
The offences spanned a period of seven and a half months between 20 January 2001 and 2 September 2001.
There is no issue concerning the facts upon which the applicant was sentenced. The Crown has summarised them in written submissions and it is convenient to refer to that summary:
“(a) 20 January, 2001, break enter and steal at the Nowra Golf Club, Nowra. $2795 in cash was stolen and considerable damage to the property caused (estimated to be $1928).
(b) 27 February 2001 - break, enter and steal at Southern Rural Traders (Horseland), Moss Vale. Horse-related equipment valued at $11,320 was stolen. Damage was occasioned to the premises in the sum of approximately $300.
(c) 17 March 2001 – break, enter and steal at Chilwood Grove, Berrima. Approximately $21,051.95 in property was stolen. There was also additional damage to the property of $4000.
(d) 1 July…

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 McRae

Details

AGLC: R v McRae [2005] NSWCCA 13
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 13
Decision Date: 25 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v McRae was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, McRae, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to imprisonment. The appeal was against the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was excessive and disproportionate to the crime committed, in light of the statutory guidelines and principles of sentencing.

The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for the sentence to reflect both general and specific deterrence. Additionally, the court needed to evaluate if the sentence complied with the sentencing principles outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 and whether there were any mitigating factors that warranted a lesser sentence.

The court examined the severity of the crime, McRae's role in the robbery, and the trial judge's consideration of mitigating factors. It held that the trial judge had adequately considered the statutory guidelines and the principles of sentencing. The court concluded that the sentence was not excessive and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders