R v Miller; R v Panya - [2022] NSWDC 314

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Miller; R v Panya [2022] NSWDC 314
Hearing dates: 22 July 2022
Date of orders: 28 July 2022
Decision date: 28 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Scotting DCJ
Decision:
Miller
See [98] to [104]
Panya
See [105] – [108]

Catchwords:
CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery in company
CRIME — Violent offences — Recklessly cause grievous bodily harm

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Legge v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 244
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270

Category: Sentence
Parties: ODPP NSW (Prosecutor)
Jarryd Miller (Defendant)
Piyabut Panya (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
V Garrity (Prosecutor)
D Hawkins (Defendant – Miller)
Solicitors:
ODPP (Prosecutor)
McGirr and Associates (Defendant – Miller)
Ly Lawyers (Defendant – Panya)

File Number(s): 2020/187968
2020/187306
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

Introduction

Jarryd Miller appears for sentence after pleading guilty in the Local Court to the following offences:

Sequence
H73359610

Offence

Maximum Penalty

14

Assault with intent to rob in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Wang) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900

25 years

9

Robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Ye) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900

25 years

11

Robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Cai) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900

25 years

Mr Miller also asks the Court to take into account a further three counts of Robbery in company armed with a dangerous weapon on a Form 1 when dealing with sequence 14.
Mr Miller is also in breach of three Community Correction Orders imposed in the District Court sitting at Port Macquarie on 12 May 2020, for offences of Drive in a Manner Dangerous and Drive Whilst Cancelled. The bonds were imposed on appeal, in lieu of sentences of imprisonment of three months and one month respectively.
Piyabut Panya appears for sentence after pleading guilty in the Local Court to the following offences:

Sequence
H3364610

Offence

Maximum Penalty and SNPP

14

Reckless grievous bodily harm in company (victim Wang) contrary to s 35(1) Crimes Act 1900

14 years

SNPP – 5years

15

Attempted robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Wang) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900

25 years

9

Robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Ye) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900

25 years

11

Robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Cai) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900

25 years

Mr Panya asks the Court to take into account a further three counts of Robbery in company armed with a dangerous weapon on a Form 1 when dealing with sequence 15.

Approach to Sentencing

I have taken into account the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
The offenders entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court and are entitled to a 25% discount on sentence: s 25D(2)(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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Miller; R v Panya and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWDC 314
Decision Date: 28 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Miller; R v Panya, the accused, Miller and Panya, were found guilty of robbery in company and recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the two individuals. The prosecution argued for severe penalties due to the violent nature of the crimes, while the defence sought to mitigate the circumstances surrounding the offences. The court had to balance the gravity of the crimes with the potential for rehabilitation and the individual circumstances of each defendant.

The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentencing principles applicable to the charges of robbery in company and recklessly causing grievous bodily harm. The court had to consider the severity of the crimes, the role of each defendant in the commission of the offences, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. Additionally, the court examined the mitigating factors presented by the defence, such as the defendants' backgrounds, their expressions of remorse, and any potential for rehabilitation.

The court meticulously evaluated the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It found that both Miller and Panya played significant roles in the commission of the robberies, leading to severe consequences for the victims. The court emphasised the need for punishment to reflect the seriousness of the offences and to deter similar conduct in the future. However, it also took into account the mitigating factors and the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that while both defendants were culpable, their sentences should reflect the specific circumstances of their involvement and their prospects for rehabilitation. The sentences were designed to achieve a balance between punishment and the possibility of the defendants becoming law-abiding citizens.

The final orders regarding the sentences for Miller and Panya are detailed in paragraphs [98] to [104] and [105] to [108] respectively. These paragraphs outline the specific terms of the sentences, including the length of imprisonment and any additional conditions imposed by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

Miller

See [98] to [104]

Panya

See [105] – [108]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Miller; R v Panya [2022] NSWDC 314
Hearing dates:	22 July 2022
Date of orders:	28 July 2022
Decision date:	28 July 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Scotting DCJ
Decision:	Miller See [98] to [104] Panya See [105] – [108]
Catchwords:	CRIME — Violent offences — Robbery in company CRIME — Violent offences — Recklessly cause grievous bodily harm
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Legge v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 244 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	ODPP NSW (Prosecutor) Jarryd Miller (Defendant) Piyabut Panya (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: V Garrity (Prosecutor) D Hawkins (Defendant – Miller) Solicitors: ODPP (Prosecutor) McGirr and Associates (Defendant – Miller) Ly Lawyers (Defendant – Panya)
File Number(s):	2020/187968 2020/187306
Publication restriction:	None

Sequence H73359610	Offence	Maximum Penalty
14	Assault with intent to rob in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Wang) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900	25 years
9	Robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Ye) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900	25 years
11	Robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Cai) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900	25 years

Sequence H3364610	Offence	Maximum Penalty and SNPP
14	Reckless grievous bodily harm in company (victim Wang) contrary to s 35(1) Crimes Act 1900	14 years SNPP – 5years
15	Attempted robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Wang) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900	25 years
9	Robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Ye) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900	25 years
11	Robbery in company, armed with a dangerous weapon (victim Cai) contrary to s 97(2) Crimes Act 1900	25 years