Legal Research
Cases
R v Ponfield

R v Ponfield

Case [1999] NSWCCA 422 16 December 1999

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Breaking Entering and Stealing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 422

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60326/99

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 1 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Robert George Ponfield

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Grove J at 2; Sully J at 23

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DCQ8 264/99

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: J.B. Phelan DCJ

COUNSEL: C.K. Maxwell QC & M. Buscombe (Crown)
J.S. Stratton (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
T.A. Murphy (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law and Procedure - Sentence - Breaking Entering and Stealing - Inadequacy - Crown Appeal

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

CASES CITED:
Griffiths v The Queen 1977 137 CLR 293

DECISION: Appeal allowed

The respondent had a significant criminal record including many offences of breaking entering and stealing and allied crimes. He was arrested in possession of loot from like offences and after charging, released on bail. He failed to appear. A year later he was again arrested virtually red-handed after another breaking entering and stealing. A pre-sentence report stated that non-custodial options could not be recommended in the absence of demonstration that drug problems had been overcome. The respondent sought a long adjournment so as to be able to show his endeavour at rehabilitation. At the final sentencing hearing, favourable information was presented. The respondent was released on recognizance on two counts and sentenced to 500 hours community service on a third.

HELD: The orders failed to reflect the objective circumstances of the offences and represented manifestly inadequate sentence. The respondent’s efforts towards rehabilitation should be encouraged but a custodial sentence was demanded by the circumstances followed by an extended period of parole.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60326/98

SPIGELMAN CJ
GROVE J
SULLY J

16 December 1999

REGINA v ROBERT GEORGE PONFIELD

JUDGMENT

1    SPIGELMAN CJ : I agree with Grove J.
2 GROVE J: This appeal was heard in conjunction with applications by the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions for a guideline judgment in connection with offences of breaking, entering and stealing punishable pursuant to s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

3    The respondent Ponfield pleaded guilty in Wollongong District Court to three counts of breaking entering and stealing and asked to be taken into account on Form 1 an offence of possessing implements capable of entering and driving a conveyance and an offence of failing to appear. J.B. Phelan DCJ deferred passing sentence in respect of counts 1 and 2 upon the respondent entering a recognizance himself in the sum of $500 to be of good behaviour for a period of eighteen months on the condition that he continue under the supervision of the Probation Service and in particular except such direction as it gives in relation to drug rehabilitation “including full time rehabilitation” if that is considered necessary and on the third count his Honour imposed 500 hours community service.

4    In relation to counts 1 and 2 the facts were that at about…

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 Ponfield

Details

AGLC: R v Ponfield [1999] NSWCCA 422
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 422
Decision Date: 16 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ponfield was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Ponfield, was convicted for breaking and entering and stealing. The appeal was brought by the Crown seeking a more severe sentence. The trial judge had sentenced Ponfield to a term of imprisonment that the Crown deemed inadequate given the gravity of the offence.

The central legal issues revolved around the adequacy of the sentence imposed by the trial judge and whether the Court should intervene on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness of the offence and failed to adequately deter Ponfield and others from committing similar crimes. The appeal hinged on whether the Court should exercise its discretion to impose a more severe sentence.

The High Court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered the need for deterrence and general deterrence in imposing the sentence. The Court noted that while the trial judge had taken into account various mitigating factors, the overall sentence did not appropriately reflect the severity of the crime committed. The Court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and exercised its appellate jurisdiction to increase the term of imprisonment. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for serious offences such as breaking and entering and stealing serve both as a punishment for the offender and as a deterrent to others.

The final orders of the Court were to increase the term of imprisonment for Ponfield, reflecting the need for a sentence that adequately addresses the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the community.

Orders