R v Olson - [2003] NSWCCA 349

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Olson [2003] NSWCCA 349

FILE NUMBER(S):
60263/03

HEARING DATE(S): 18 November 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 18/11/2003

PARTIES:
Regina
Raymond Patrick Olson

JUDGMENT OF: Tobias JA Hidden J James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 02/11/0836

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Shadbolt DCJ

COUNSEL:
A: L. Flannery
C: F. Guy

SOLICITORS:
A: S. O'Connor
C: C. K. Smith

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence for armed robbery - whether trial judge should have given a further discount due to assistance given by accused to authorities in relation to co-offender
ND

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900, s442B, s97(1)
Sentencing Act, s 21A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 23

DECISION:
(a) Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed
(b) The sentence imposed by Judge Shadbolt on 22 November 2002 be set aside and in lieu thereof the applicant be sentenced to four years three months imprisonment commencing on 7 July 2002 and expiring on 6 October 2006, with a non-parole period of three years two months commencing on 7 July 2002 and expiring on 6 September 2005.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60263/03
DC 02/11/0836
TOBIAS JA
HIDDEN J
GREG JAMES J
Tuesday 18 November 2003

REGINA v RAYMOND PATRICK OLSON

Judgment

TOBIAS JA: On 28 October 2002, Raymond Patrick Olson (the applicant) pleaded guilty before Judge Shadbolt of the District Court to one count of armed robbery. The charge was brought under s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900, which provides for a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment.
On 22 November 2002, Judge Shadbolt sentenced the applicant to five years imprisonment commencing 7 July 2002 and expiring 6 July 2007, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months commencing 7 July 2002 and expiring 6 April 2005. The applicant originally appealed against his conviction and sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. On 13 November 2003, he filed a Notice of Abandonment with respect to his appeal against conviction. Accordingly, this Court is concerned only with the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
The circumstances of the offence are clearly set out in the trial judge's remarks on sentence. They are essentially as follows. At 6.40 pm on 15 December 2001, the applicant and his co-offender drove to Richmond Avenue, North Manly, and parked on the northern kerb facing east, with the passenger door open. The co-offender left the vehicle and walked to the eastern car park of the Dee Why RSL (the club). He followed the victim as she left the club and headed towards her motor vehicle. As the victim got into her vehicle she became aware that the co-offender was following her. She attempted to pull her door closed but the co-offender reached in and stopped the door from closing. He then grabbed the victim's handbag and pulled at it. With his right hand he swung a knife at the victim's…

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 Olson

Details

AGLC: R v Olson [2003] NSWCCA 349
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 349
Decision Date: 18 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent, Olson, against a sentence imposed for armed robbery. Olson had been convicted in the County Court for his role in an armed robbery, and he appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, arguing that it should have been reduced due to his assistance to the authorities in relation to his co-offender. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which considered whether the trial judge had erred in not reducing the sentence further due to Olson's assistance.

The court considered whether the trial judge should have reduced the sentence for Olson's assistance to the authorities in relation to his co-offender. The court noted that while Olson had provided some assistance to the authorities, this did not necessarily warrant a reduction in sentence. The court held that the trial judge had considered Olson's assistance when imposing sentence, and that there was no error in the sentence imposed.

The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the principles of sentencing and had not erred in failing to reduce the sentence further for Olson's assistance. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that there was no basis for the appeal to succeed.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld.

Orders