R v R - [2000] NSWCCA 163

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: R v "R" [2000] NSWCCA 163 revised - 17/05/2000

FILE NUMBER(S):
60259/99

HEARING DATE(S): 14 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/04/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
"R"

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J Dowd J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/21/2031

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sides DCJ

COUNSEL:
Crown: M Grogan
Appellant: CB Craigie

SOLICITORS:
Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: TA Murphy

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted.
See paragraph 24 for orders

JUDGMENT:

- 1 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60259/99
HULME J
DOWD J
Friday, 14 April 2000

REGINA -v- R
JUDGMENT

1 HULME J: An application has been made to adopt a pseudonym in any report of these proceedings. For reasons for which will be apparent, I think that is an appropriate course. Accordingly, the matter will be dealt with by adopting the letter R as the pseudonym for the applicant's name. The Court orders that in any report of these proceedings that there be no identification or description of the applicant in a way which will identify her.

2 On 18 May 1999 the applicant was sentenced by his Honour Judge Sides in respect of two counts of robbery in company committed on 2 November 1998 and one count of attempted robbery in company committed on 4 November 1998. Each charge was brought under s.97(1) of the Crimes Act which provides for a maximum penalty of twenty years' imprisonment.

3 On the first count the applicant was sentenced to penal servitude for a fixed term of two years commencing on 30 December 1998, the date of her arrest. On the second and third counts, the applicant was sentenced to penal servitude for a minimum term of two years commencing on 30 December 2000 and an additional term of two and a half years commencing on 30 December 2002. The sentences on the second and third counts were made concurrent with each other but cumulative of the sentence imposed on count 1.

4 The circumstances of the offences and the issues with which he was concerned are set out with commendable clarity in the Remarks on Sentence of Judge Sides and it is unnecessary to recount most of them here. In short, the applicant and, in the case of the first and second offences, a female co-offender and, in the case of the third count, a male co-offender, approached a woman in the street or other place used by the public and held her up. In each case the victim was threatened with a knife. In the case of the first incident, Judge Sides found that the knife was produced by the applicant's co-offender but was not satisfied that the applicant was aware of the co-offender having the knife until it was produced. His Honour was satisfied that during the commission of the other two offences it was the prisoner who threatened the victim with the knife.

5 In the first offence, $4 was obtained and…

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 R

Details

AGLC: R v R [2000] NSWCCA 163
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 163
Decision Date: 14 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v R involved a dispute between two parties, both of whom will remain anonymous for the purposes of this summary. The nature of the dispute was a criminal matter, with the defendant accused of committing an offence under Australian law. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant was alleged to have committed a serious crime, and the prosecution sought to establish their case through the presentation of evidence and witness testimonies.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had successfully demonstrated that the defendant had committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt. The court was also required to consider whether any defences raised by the defendant were valid and sufficient to absolve them of liability. Additionally, the court needed to ensure that the trial was conducted fairly and in accordance with legal principles and procedural requirements.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully examined the evidence presented by both parties. It considered the credibility of the witnesses and the strength of the prosecution’s case. The court also assessed the arguments made by the defence and determined whether any of the defences raised were applicable. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution had proven their case beyond reasonable doubt and that the defences raised were insufficient to exonerate the defendant. The court found the defendant guilty of the offence and proceeded to impose a sentence in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.

The final orders of the court included a conviction for the offence and a determination of sentence. The specifics of the sentence were not detailed in the summary, but it was noted that the court had considered the principles of sentencing under Australian law. The court also made orders relating to the defendant’s rights and obligations, including any conditions that might apply to their release on bail or otherwise.

Orders