R v PGM

Case [2008] NSWCCA 172 13 August 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Appeal Outcome: Special leave application dismissed by the High Court (s414/2008) 12 March 2009 [2009] HCASL 62

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172

HEARING DATE(S): 8 July 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 August 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Barr J at 2; Fullerton J at 3

DECISION: 1. The appeal against sentence is allowed.
2. The sentences imposed in the District Court are quashed.
3. In lieu thereof the following sentences be imposed:
Count 1: a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 26 January 2006 and expiring on 25 January 2012 with a balance of term of 3 years expiring on 25 January 2015.
Count 2: a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 26 January 2006 and expiring on 25 January 2012 with a balance of term of 3 years expiring on 25 January 2015.
Count 3: a non-parole period of 4 years to date from 26 January 2006 and expiring on 25 January 2010 with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 25 January 2012.
Count 4: a non-parole period of 4 years to date from 26 January 2006 and expiring on 25 January 2010 with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 25 January 2012.
Count 5: a non-parole period of 6 years to date from 26 January 2006 and expiring on 25 January 2012 with a balance of term of 3 years expiring on 25 January 2015.
Count 7: a non-parole period of 4 years and 8 months to date from 26 November 2008 and expiring on 25 July 2013 with a balance of term of 2 years expiring on 25 July 2015.
In the result, the effective non-parole period is 7 years and 6 months and the earliest date that the respondent is entitled to be considered for release to parole is 25 July 2013.

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal against inadequacy - multiple offences against s 66A and s 61M of the Crimes Act 1900 - after trial - application of s 54B of Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 - significance of prior good character and psychiatric condition

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED: GAT v R [2007] NSWCCA 208
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499
Ibbs v R (1987) 163 CLR 447
Lozanovski v R [2006] NSWCCA 143
MLP v R [2006] NSWCCA 271; 164 A Crim R 93
Pearce v R [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
PGM v R [2006] NSWCCA 310; 164 A Crim R 426
R v ABS [2005] NSWCCA 255
R v AJP [2004] NSWCCA 434; 150 A Crim R 575
R v CJP [2004] NSWCCA 188
R v Hemsley [2004] NSWCCA 228
R v Kennedy [2000] NSWCCA 527
R v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131; 60 NSWLR 168
R v Witchard [2007] NSWCCA 167
RJA v R [2008] NSWCCA…

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 PGM

Details

AGLC: R v PGM [2008] NSWCCA 172
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 172
Decision Date: 13 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v PGM involved the Crown appealing against the sentences handed down for multiple offences committed by the respondent. The respondent was found guilty of offences under section 66A and section 61M of the Crimes Act 1900, following a trial. The Crown sought to appeal on the basis that the sentences imposed were inadequate. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was required to determine the appropriate legal issues.

The central legal issues before the court involved the application of section 54B of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999. The court had to consider whether the sentences were inadequate in light of the severity and nature of the offences committed. Additionally, the court was tasked with assessing the significance of the respondent's prior good character and psychiatric condition, as these factors were raised during sentencing. The court had to balance these mitigating factors against the gravity of the crimes.

In delivering its judgment, the Court of Criminal Appeal highlighted the necessity of considering both aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of prior good character as a mitigating factor, but also acknowledged the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the sentences imposed were inadequate in relation to the nature and impact of the crimes. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the lower court for resentencing. The final orders included the quashing of the original sentences and the direction that the respondent be re-sentenced in accordance with the law.

Orders