R v Peter William Schaffer - [2005] NSWCCA 193

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Peter William Schaffer [2005] NSWCCA 193

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/395

HEARING DATE(S): 18/05/2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 18/05/2005

PARTIES:
Regina
Peter William Schaffer

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J Buddin J Hall J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/1234

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Hock DCJ

COUNSEL:
D Frearson SC (Crown)
JR Young (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh (Crown)
A Bilias (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
Sentence - break and enter with intent - threaten to cause injury to a judicial officer intending to influence that person in his conduct as a judicial officer - nature and seriousness of offence involving judicial officer.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2205/395
SIMPSON J
BUDDIN J
HALL J
WEDNESDAY 18 MAY 2005

REGINA v PETER WILLIAM SCHAFFER

Judgment

BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court in respect of two separate offences.
In respect of a charge of break and enter with intent to commit a serious indictable offence, namely larceny, brought pursuant to s 113(1) of the Crimes Act, the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months imprisonment. The applicant was also sentenced in respect of an offence brought pursuant to s 322(c) of the Crimes Act of threatening to cause injury to a magistrate, intending thereby to influence him in his conduct as a judicial officer. In respect of that offence, a non-parole period of 18 months imprisonment with a total term of 3 years was fixed. The maximum penalty for each offence is 10 years imprisonment.
The latter sentence was ordered to commence 9 months after the commencement of the earlier sentence and the overall effective sentence is thus a non-parole period of 2 years 3 months with a total term of 3 years 9 months. The sentencing judge found special circumstances within the meaning of s 44(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act by reason of the fact that the sentences were partially accumulated and because her Honour determined that “the offender will benefit from a longer period of supervision”.
In sentencing the applicant for the latter offence, the sentencing judge took into account two charges of goods in custody which were on a Form 1 document.
It is convenient to set out, subject to minor amendments, the Agreed Statement of Facts which relate to the respective offences:
Break and enter with intent to commit serious indictable offence, namely larceny on 26 June 2003 (Count 1)
At 12.05 pm on 26th June 2003 the victims, Terrence Daley and Bruno Henriques returned to their unit at 2/10 Oxley Avenue Jannali. Prior to leaving for their bike ride Henriques checked that the lock on the garage door was secure. Upon returning to the rear car park at that location Henriques noticed that the Colourbond garage door had been forced open and was bent towards the outside. Henriques…

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 Peter William Schaffer

Details

AGLC: R v Peter William Schaffer [2005] NSWCCA 193
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 193
Decision Date: 18 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Peter William Schaffer involved the appellant, Schaffer, who was charged and convicted for breaking and entering a place with the intent to commit an indictable offence, and for threatening to cause injury to a judicial officer with the intent to influence that officer in their conduct as a judicial officer. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing approach for the crimes committed against a judicial officer, particularly the severity of the threat made and its implications on the sentence.

The court was required to determine whether the lower court had appropriately considered the unique nature of the offence, which involved a threat to a judicial officer, in its sentencing process. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was excessive, and that the lower court had not adequately taken into account the mitigating factors of his personal circumstances. The prosecution contended that the threats made were serious and warranted a substantial sentence to protect the integrity of the judiciary and to deter future similar conduct.

In delivering the judgement, the court examined the sentencing principles applicable to threats made against judicial officers and the gravity of such offences. The court found that the lower court had appropriately recognised the serious nature of the threat made and had given due consideration to the need for deterrence and protection of the judiciary. The court held that the sentence was not excessive and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No additional final orders were made by the court beyond the affirmation of the lower court's decision. The court's reasoning emphasised the importance of ensuring that threats against judicial officers are met with significant penalties to maintain public confidence in the judicial system.

Orders