R v Ravet - [2001] NSWCCA 535

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Shane John Ravet [2001] NSWCCA 535

FILE NUMBER(S):
60658/01

HEARING DATE(S): 6 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE: 06/12/2001

PARTIES:
Regina - Appellant - Crown
Shane John Ravet - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Stein JA Hidden J Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/11/0376
01/11/0377
01/11/0807

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Williams DCJ

COUNSEL:
L M B Lamprati - Appellant - Crown
C B Craigie SC - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
Crown Solicitors Office - Appellant - Crown
Legal Aid Commission of NSW - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - Crown appeal against sentence - break, enter and steal - offence committed while on parole - objective seriousness of offence - deterrance - drug addiction - rehabilitation program
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal - double jeopardy - appellate discretion - ND

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Justices Act 1902

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60658/01

STEIN JA
HIDDEN J
KIRBY J

Thursday, 6 December 2001

REGINA v Shane John RAVET

Judgment

STEIN JA: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against a sentence imposed on the respondent, Shane John Ravet, by Judge Williams in the District Court on 10 August 2001.
His Honour sentenced Mr Ravet on two counts. He had pleaded guilty to one count of break, enter and steal committed on 31 May 2000 (s 112 (1) Crimes Act 1900) and one count of break and enter with intent to commit a felony (s 113(1)) on 20 December 2000.
The respondent had also pleaded guilty before a local court to a break, enter and steal offence committed between 25 and 26 March 2000 and was committed for sentence pursuant to s 51A of the Justices Act 1902. This matter was also before his Honour on 10 August 2001.
With respect to each count on the indictment, his Honour sentenced the respondent to 2 years imprisonment to date from 20 December 2000 when he was taken into custody, with a non-parole period of 12 months to expire on 19 December 2001.
On the s 51A matter, his Honour sentenced the respondent to a section 9 bond to be of good behaviour for 2 years from 10 August 2001.
When ordering the release of the respondent to parole on 19 December 2001 his Honour said that it was on condition that he accept the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service, and that such supervision may include a direction to attend a residential drug rehabilitation programme. Similar conditions were also placed upon the s 9 bond.
His Honour described the offences as ‘run-of-the-mill break and enters’ of the shops after they had closed. Indeed they were. The offence of 31 May 2000 involved forcing a roller shutter door of a womens’ fashion shop at the Ashfield Mall. $200 disappeared from the cash register. The respondent left his…

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 Ravet

Details

AGLC: R v Ravet [2001] NSWCCA 535
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 535
Decision Date: 6 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ravet involved a defendant who had been convicted of breaking and entering, and stealing, while on parole for a prior offence. The Crown appealed the sentence as being too lenient, arguing that the objective seriousness of the offence warranted a harsher penalty, particularly in light of the offender's history and drug addiction. The appeal also challenged the application of the double jeopardy principle and the discretion of the appellate court to impose a new sentence.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate weight to be given to the objective seriousness of the offence, the role of deterrence and rehabilitation in sentencing, and the limits of appellate discretion when considering a new sentence after an appeal. The court had to balance these considerations against the principle of double jeopardy, which generally prohibits a defendant from being tried again for the same offence after a conviction.

In its decision, the court found that the original sentence was indeed too lenient given the objective seriousness of the offence, the offender's criminal history, and his ongoing drug addiction. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that would effectively deter the offender and others from committing similar crimes, as well as provide an opportunity for rehabilitation. The appeal was allowed, and a new sentence was imposed by the appellate court. The court exercised its discretion to impose a more stringent sentence, recognising the exceptional circumstances of the case and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The final orders of the court included a new sentence for the defendant, reflecting the court's determination of the appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court also clarified the parameters of appellate discretion in cases where the original sentence is deemed inadequate, reaffirming the principle that the appellate court may impose a new sentence when necessary.

Orders