R v PPB

Case [1999] NSWCCA 360 29 October 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v PPB [1999] NSWCCA 360

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60271/98

HEARING DATE(S): 29 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 October 1999

PARTIES :

Regina
PPB

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J; Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/21/0168

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Dodd DCJ

COUNSEL: P G Berman (Crown)
J S Andrews (Appl)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
T Murphy (Appl - LAC)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE; Application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence; discount for assistance; desirability of Judge including arithmetic where discount for assistance

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - s97(1), s97(2), s442B
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s5DA
Sentencing Act 1989 - s5(2)

CASES CITED:
Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Regina v Jarrott (CCA, unreported, 27.9.93)
Regina v Moran (CCA, unreported, 30.11.94)
Regina v Bishell (CCA, unreported, 18.2.92)
Regina v Begnell (CCA, unreported, 26.11.92)
Regina v Stanford (CCA, unreported, 23.1.93)
Regina v Thwaites (CCA, unreported, 6.10.93)
Regina v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
Regina v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
Regina v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
Regina v Daryl Bruce Lewis 100 A Crim R 361

DECISION: Appeal allowed; Refer para 35

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60271/98

SIMPSON J
KIRBY J

FRIDAY 29 OCTOBER 1999

REGINA v “PPB”

JUDGMENT
1   KIRBY J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him in the District Court by his Honour Judge Dodd on 22 May 1998.
2   The applicant, Mr B, pleaded guilty to a significant number of offences. He also asked his Honour to take account of an additional eight offences which were set out in two Form 1 documents.
3 Shortly stated, Mr B acknowledged his guilt in respect of seven armed robberies. The robberies were, in each case, committed in company. Two of the charges were for robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon, the weapon being a knife (s97(1) Crimes Act 1900). The remaining five were robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon, the dangerous weapon being a sawn-off .22 rifle (s97(2) Crimes Act 1900).
4   The plea included an acknowledgment of guilt in respect of seven counts of stealing a motor vehicle. In addition, the Form 1 offences included assault, larceny and break and enter and steal on two occasions.
5 In respect of the counts of armed robbery with an offensive weapon, the maximum penalty prescribed by s97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 is twenty years' penal servitude. In respect of the offence of aggravated armed robbery, that is armed robbery with a dangerous weapon, the maximum penalty prescribed by s97(2) Crimes Act is twenty-five years' penal servitude.
6   His Honour imposed a sentence of eight years' penal servitude in respect of each count of armed robbery, consisting of a minimum term of six years and an additional term of two years, each sentence concurrent. A fixed term of penal servitude for twelve months was imposed in respect of the three counts of stealing a motor vehicle.
7…

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 PPB

Details

AGLC: R v PPB [1999] NSWCCA 360
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 360
Decision Date: 29 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the respondent, PPB, who was convicted of multiple drug-related offences. The court was asked to consider an application for leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence imposed on PPB. The application was brought before the court, which had to determine whether the discount applied to the sentence for the respondent's assistance to law enforcement was appropriate and whether the trial judge should have included the arithmetic of the discount in the reasons for sentencing. The court's role was to assess the correctness of the trial judge's approach to sentencing, specifically focusing on the application of the discount for assistance and the transparency of the sentencing process.

The legal issues at hand were twofold. Firstly, the court had to consider whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles governing the discount for assistance, and secondly, whether the trial judge should have explicitly included the arithmetic of the discount in the sentencing reasons. This involved examining the sentencing principles and practices, including the extent to which the judge should articulate the discount calculation in the sentencing reasons. The court also needed to balance the principles of judicial economy with the importance of transparency in the sentencing process.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the trial judge had correctly applied the principles governing the discount for assistance. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the respondent's assistance to law enforcement and that the discount applied was commensurate with the level of assistance provided. However, the court held that the trial judge should have included the arithmetic of the discount in the sentencing reasons to ensure transparency and to allow for proper scrutiny of the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of the sentencing judge articulating the discount calculation to uphold the integrity of the sentencing process and to provide clarity for any potential appellate review. The court ultimately granted leave to appeal, highlighting the need for greater clarity in the sentencing reasons regarding the discount for assistance.

The court's final orders included granting leave to appeal against the severity of the sentence, with directions for the trial judge to provide a more detailed explanation of the discount for assistance in the sentencing reasons. The appeal was to be heard before a different panel of the court to ensure impartiality and to allow for a fresh consideration of the sentence imposed on PPB. The court's decision underscored the importance of transparency and clarity in the sentencing process, particularly when applying discounts for assistance to law enforcement.

Orders