R v Rai - [2002] NSWCCA 506

CITATION: R v RAI [2002] NSWCCA 506

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60460/02

HEARING DATE(S): 4 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 December 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Jack Alan Charlie Kenneth Rai

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp JA at 21; Hulme J at 1; Bell J at 22

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 02/21/3263

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Sides DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: DC Frearson
Appellant: AP Cook

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: DJ Humphreys

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

- 6 -IN THE COURT OF

No: 60460/02

IPP JA
HULME J
BELL J
Wednesday, 4 December 2002

R v Jack Alan Charlie Kenneth RAI

Judgment

1 HULME J: On 20 August 2002 the Respondent to this Crown appeal was sentenced by Judge Sides to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 15 months commencing on 28 March 2002 which terms included a non-parole period of 5 months. The offences in respect of which those sentences were imposed were of armed robberies committed on 1 March 1998 and in the course of which two persons were robbed of an amount of cash. The “arm” was a hammer.

2 At first blush the sentences are obviously lenient. However, the circumstances were unusual.

3 The victims the subject of the charges were in their late teens and were checkout operators at the Franklins supermarket in Guildford. The Respondent approached one, grabbed her by the neck and wielding a hammer demanded that her till be opened and when this occurred he removed money from it. He repeated this performance with the second operator. During the course of his activity he was joined by an accomplice similarly armed. Descriptions of the offences indicate that both offenders displayed aggression both in word and deed and one can have no doubt that the experience must have been very frightening for the victims. The amount stolen was something of the order of $500.00. The Respondent left his fingerprint at the scene but the authorities seem to have done nothing significant in relation to that until September 2001. The Respondent was arrested on 12 February 2002 and he pleaded guilty in the Local Court. There was no explanation for the delay in the investigation or in the institution of proceedings.

4 On 3 July 1998 the Respondent had committed an armed robbery on a cigarette shop, the “arm” on that occasion being an axe or similar weapon. On 13 August 1998 he had committed another robbery on a liquor outlet in company. He was arrested on 16 August 1998 and remained in custody until, on 4 February 1999, he was sentenced by Judge Moore in respect of these offences to 4 years imprisonment which terms included an 18 month non-parole period. Judge Sides recorded that the Respondent was released to parole in February 2000. An annexure to an affidavit of the Respondent’s solicitor which the Court permitted to be read in the appeal, the Department of Corrective Services Custodial History of the Respondent, shows that this in fact occurred on 18…

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 Rai

Details

AGLC: R v Rai [2002] NSWCCA 506
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 506
Decision Date: 4 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal in New South Wales heard an appeal by the Crown against the sentencing of Jack Alan Charlie Kenneth Rai, who was convicted of armed robberies. Rai was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 15 months with a non-parole period of 5 months, which the Crown deemed lenient. The crimes were committed in 1998, involved the use of a hammer, and caused significant fear to the victims. The case presented several legal issues, including whether the sentences adequately reflected the gravity of the crimes, whether the sentencing judge gave appropriate weight to Rai's history of drug abuse and intellectual disability, and whether the delay in charging Rai warranted a more lenient sentence.

The Court considered that while the gravity of the crimes was high, the circumstances surrounding Rai's case were exceptional. Factors such as Rai's intellectual disability, his troubled relationship with his father, and his demonstrated efforts towards rehabilitation were considered. The Court noted the significant delay in charging Rai and acknowledged that sentencing is not purely a logical exercise, allowing for considerable judicial discretion, especially in exceptional cases. The Crown's failure to oppose a lenient sentence in the lower court also influenced the Court's decision. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly inadequate and chose to exercise its discretion not to interfere with the original sentencing decision.

Orders