R v Quarta - [2000] NSWCCA 406

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v Quarta [2000] NSWCCA 406

FILE NUMBER(S):
60837/99

HEARING DATE(S): 4 October 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 04/10/2000

PARTIES:
Crown/Respondent
Justin QUARTA/ Applicant

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J Hidden J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0529, 99/11/0476

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Woods DCJ

COUNSEL:
R A Hulme - Crown
G P Meakin - Solicitor

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor - Crown
Neil J O'Connor & Associates

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted - appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60837/99

SIMPSON J
HIDDEN J

4 October 2000

REGINA v Justin QUARTA

Judgment

SIMPSON J :

This is an application for leave to appeal against the asserted severity of sentences imposed upon the applicant on 9 December 1999 by Judge Woods in the District Court following the applicant's plea of guilty to an indictment containing two counts. Count 1 was a charge of being an accessory after the fact of robbery in company. Pursuant to s 97(1) and s 349 of the Crimes Act 1900, offenders convicted under the former section are liable to a maximum penalty of penal servitude for fourteen years. Count 2 was a charge of aggravated dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm. Pursuant to s 52A of the Crimes Act, the applicant was liable in respect of this offence to imprisonment for eleven years. The circumstance of aggravation was that the applicant was driving the vehicle to escape pursuit by a police officer.
As well, the applicant asked that offences of possession and supply of a prohibited drug, of having on premises goods reasonably suspected of having been stolen, and unlicensed driving, be taken into account pursuant to s 21 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.
Judge Woods sentenced the applicant on count 1 to a fixed term of penal servitude for two and a half years. On count 2, and taking into account the s 21 matters, he imposed a total term of penal servitude for five years, made up of a minimum term of three years and an additional term of two years. He specified that the sentences were to be served concurrently, to commence on 16 April 1999, the date the applicant was taken into custody, which was also the date the two offences on the indictment were committed.
The applicant contends that the sentences imposed are manifestly excessive. Particular grounds of the application are that the sentences failed to conform with guideline sentences promulgated by this court in respect of offences against s 52A (R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209) and s 97 (R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346); that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to certain subjective factors, specifically "the applicant's mental age and psychological difficulties" and that his Honour failed to give adequate benefit to the applicant's pleas of guilty.
At the hearing of the application, 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.

Continue reading R v Quarta

Details

AGLC: R v Quarta [2000] NSWCCA 406
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 406
Decision Date: 4 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Quarta was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Quarta, was involved in a post office robbery in Hunters Hill, where he drove the stolen vehicle while two co-offenders, Walsh and Crowe, committed the robbery. Quarta was charged with accessorial involvement in the robbery and dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm. The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Quarta's sentence was appropriate in comparison to his co-offenders and whether his conduct during the chase and collision was sufficiently dangerous to warrant the charge of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm.

The court examined the nature of Quarta's involvement in the crime, noting that while he did not physically participate in the robbery, he played a crucial role by driving the getaway vehicle. The court also considered the severity of the injuries sustained by Ms. Finch, the driver of the vehicle Quarta collided with. The dangerous nature of Quarta's driving, including high-speed pursuits, ignoring police signals, and multiple traffic violations, was highlighted as a significant factor. The court concluded that Quarta's actions during the chase were indeed dangerous, justifying the charge of dangerous driving occasioning grievous bodily harm.

The court concluded that Quarta's sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The comparison with his co-offenders was deemed necessary, but the court found that Quarta's role, though significant, was less directly involved in the violent aspects of the crime compared to Walsh and Crowe. The severity of Ms. Finch's injuries and the dangerous nature of Quarta's driving supported the sentence imposed. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of Quarta's actions and the harm caused.

The court upheld the sentence imposed on Quarta, finding it to be appropriate in the context of the crime and the comparison with his co-offenders. The dangerous driving charge was also affirmed, given the substantial risk Quarta posed to the public during the high-speed pursuit.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

At the hearing of the application, the question of a comparison of the applicant's sentence with that imposed on a co-offender was also raised.The Facts On 16 April 1999 the applicant, with two co-offenders (David Walsh and Matthew Crowe) as passengers, drove a stolen motor vehicle to a post office in Hunters Hill. While he remained in the car, the other two offenders entered the Post Office, (Crowe masked with a black beanie and wielding a screwdriver), and demanded money of Mr Barry Frost, the postal officer on duty. Crowe held a screwdriver at Mr Frost's throat, and Walsh removed cash from the drawers of the post office. Crowe complained that there was not enough money and, being told that the money was in a time controlled safe, he kicked the safe in an unsuccessful attempt to open it. Crowe and Walsh then left the Post Office with the money they had been able to take and rejoined the applicant in the waiting vehicle. The applicant drove off. The events had been observed and the number plate of the vehicle taken by two passers by. They quickly reported the vehicle's number to police who communicated it, presumably, by police radio. Very shortly after, the vehicle was observed by highway patrol police and was pursued at high speed through a number of streets in the area. The applicant ignored signals by police to stop. He crossed unbroken separation lines, drove the wrong way on a roundabout, accelerated away from police, reaching speeds of between ninety and one hundred kilometres per hour in a residential street in which the applicable speed limit is sixty kilometres per hour. He drove through a stop sign failing to stop, disobeyed a give way sign and almost collided with another vehicle. When he could proceed no further because of traffic stopped at a red light, he crossed to the incorrect side of the road where he travelled for about four metres. He then slowed, turned against another traffic light, causing other vehicles to brake suddenly, changed lanes in such a manner as almost to collide with a motor cyclist, again crossed to and travelled on the incorrect side of the road and collided head on with a small sedan driven by Ms Hilma Finch. Ms Finch, aged seventy-four, suffered serious injury and was taken to and remained in Royal Prince Alfred Hospital for three days. She suffered a punctured lung and injuries to the right shoulder and chest area. The applicant and his two companions were arrested at the scene and taken to hospital. A search of the vehicle produced a black beanie similar to that which Crowe had been wearing as disguise, two screwdrivers, a wheel brace, a black hood with a mesh front and two pairs of gloves. The applicant was found to be in possession of $500. After treatment the applicant was discharged and taken to Newtown Police Station. He refused to answer questions and declined to be interviewed. The applicant was, this court was told, initially charged with robbery, or with robbery in company. The charge of accessorial involvement came as a result of negotiations with the prosecution. The relevance of this is that it was contended on his behalf that he entered a plea of guilty at the first reasonable opportunity after the charge was so formulated. This is not disputed by the Crown. This court was also told that he entered a plea to the s 52A charge at the arraignment.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

SIMPSON J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SIMPSON J

Full text does not contain this section.