R v Patti Anne Collins - [2005] NSWCCA 198

CITATION:
R v Patti Anne Collins [2005] NSWCCA 198

HEARING DATE(S): 20/05/2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

20 May 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Simpson J at 23; Buddin J at 1; Hall J at 24

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
Sentence - armed robbery - Henry guideline - irrelevance of strength of Crown case to utilitarian value of plea.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
R v Attard [2004] NSWCCA 376
R v Drew [2005] NSWCCA 50
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Petrie (2003) 141 A Crim R 396
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225
R v Thomson & Houlton (1999) 49 NSWLR 383

PARTIES:
Regina
Patti Anne Collins (Applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/281

COUNSEL:
G Rowling (Crown)
A Francis (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Crown)
SE O'Connor (Applicant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/31/0076

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Armitage DCJ

2005/281

SIMPSON J
BUDDIN J
HALL J
FRIDAY 20 MAY 2005

REGINA v PATTI ANNE COLLINS

Judgment

1 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed upon her in the District Court following her plea of guilty, which was initially entered in the Local Court, to an offence of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon.

2 The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 3 years with an associated non-parole period of 15 months. The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment. The applicant requested that three offences of goods in custody, which appeared on a Form 1 document, be taken into account on sentence. Following her sentence in the District Court, the applicant then appeared later the same day in the Local Court where she received a wholly concurrent sentence of 6 months for an unrelated offence of receiving stolen property.

3 The facts of the matter may be shortly stated. The applicant entered a video store, which was a family owned business, in the early hours of the afternoon. She was carrying with her a black handled knife which she had concealed in the right pocket of her coat. CCTV images obtained from the next door service station showed the applicant approaching the store freely swinging her left arm, whilst her right arm was secured in her right pocket. The applicant approached the store manager who was standing behind the counter in the customer service area. There was no one else in the store at the time. The applicant produced the knife and extended it directly at the victim and said: “Give me all your money. Give me all your money now”. The victim, who was understandably concerned for her safety, handed the applicant approximately $100 in notes from the till. The applicant then ran from the store and made good her escape notwithstanding the fact that both the victim and another person had pursued her for some distance.

4 Police were able to identify the applicant from the footage from the…

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 Patti Anne Collins 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: [2005] NSWCCA 198
Decision Date: 20 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Patti Anne Collins was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Patti Anne Collins, was convicted of armed robbery and faced sentencing. The case revolved around the defendant's involvement in a bank heist, where she was armed with a firearm during the commission of the crime. The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to impose on the defendant, taking into account the Henry guideline, which addresses the utilitarian value of a defendant's guilty plea.

The court had to consider the principle that the strength of the Crown's case is irrelevant to the utilitarian value of a plea. This means that the court needed to focus on the broader benefits of a guilty plea, such as expediting the judicial process and potentially reducing the defendant's sentence. The court acknowledged that while the Crown's case was strong, it did not diminish the value of the defendant's decision to plead guilty.

In determining the sentence, the court applied the Henry guideline, which recognises that a guilty plea can have significant utilitarian benefits, including conserving judicial resources and providing an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court found that despite the defendant's involvement in a serious crime, her early guilty plea warranted a reduction in her sentence. After considering all relevant factors, the court sentenced Patti Anne Collins to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the utilitarian value of her plea and the severity of the crime committed.

The final orders of the court mandated that Patti Anne Collins serve a specified term of imprisonment, with credit for the time already spent in custody. The court's decision underscored the importance of recognising the utilitarian benefits of a guilty plea, irrespective of the strength of the evidence against the defendant.

Orders