R v Ribeiro - [2005] NSWCCA 10

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Ribeiro [2005] NSWCCA 10

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/2452

HEARING DATE(S): 1 February 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 01/02/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Helton Rodregeous Ribeiro

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0960

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Blanch DCJ

COUNSEL:
G.I.O. Rowling (Crown)
M. Paisch (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)
Nedim Lawyers (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
SENTENCE
MULTIPLE OFFENCES
DISCOUNTS FOR EARLY PLEAS AND ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES
NO ERROR IN ASSESSMENT BY SENTENCING JUDGE

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

DECISION:
APPEAL DISMISSED

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2004/2452
GROVE J
JAMES J
Tuesday 1 February 2005

REGINA v HELTON RODREGEOUS RIBEIRO

Judgment

GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Chief Judge Blanch in the District Court on 30 April 2004.
On that occasion, the applicant appeared before his Honour and pleaded guilty to four counts in an indictment then presented. He also asked for two offences to be taken into account on a form 1.
As his Honour found, a plea of guilty had been offered at an early stage and the presentation of the indictment was required by technical irregularities and no delay was attributable to the applicant.
The first count to which the applicant pleaded guilty charged aggravated breaking, entering and stealing for which the prescribed maximum penalty is imprisonment for 20 years. The second count, receiving stolen property, has a prescribed maximum penalty of imprisonment for 12 years. The third count, receiving stolen property, has a maximum prescribed penalty of imprisonment for ten years, and a fourth count, possessing a prohibited weapon, for which a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment was applicable.
The offences on the form 1 related to possessing housebreaking implements and possessing a prohibited weapon. His Honour imposed sentences on each of the four counts.
On the second count he imposed imprisonment for a fixed term of two years and on the third and fourth counts each terms of imprisonment for fixed terms of 12 months. On the first count the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years with a non parole period of three years. His Honour ordered that all sentences be served concurrently. Hence it follows that the effective sentence imposed upon the applicant was imprisonment for five years with a non parole period of three years.
In helpful written submissions which have been provided to the Court by both parties, counsel for the applicant observed that the impositions may not reflect precisely the approach indicated by the High Court in Pearce v The Queen 1998 194 CLR 610. However, it does not seem to me that that is a matter of any significance to the outcome of this appeal and it suffices to look at the effective sentence in the context of the facts found by his Honour and the submissions made on behalf of the applicant.
I…

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 Ribeiro

Details

AGLC: R v Ribeiro [2005] NSWCCA 10
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 10
Decision Date: 1 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Ribeiro, the accused was convicted of multiple offences, including charges related to armed robbery and dangerous driving. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors. The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the appropriate discount to be applied for the defendant's early guilty plea and his assistance to the authorities, as well as the overall assessment of the seriousness of the offences committed. The court also needed to ensure that the sentencing was proportionate and consistent with previous cases of similar gravity.

The court commenced its analysis by considering the principles of sentencing for multiple offences, noting the importance of ensuring that the total punishment reflects the aggregate culpability of the accused. The judge assessed the defendant's early guilty plea, which was entered before the commencement of the trial, and recognised the value of such pleas in facilitating the efficient administration of justice. Additionally, the court acknowledged the defendant's cooperation with the authorities, which was evidenced by his provision of information that led to the apprehension of other offenders involved in the criminal activity. These factors warranted a discount in the overall sentence, but the court was also mindful of the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system by imposing a punishment that appropriately reflects the gravity of the crimes.

After weighing all relevant considerations, the court determined that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the appropriate level of discount for the early plea and assistance, and had also accurately evaluated the seriousness of the offences. The Supreme Court found no error in the sentencing judge's approach or outcome, affirming that the sentence imposed was just and proportionate to the crimes committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the defendant's appeal against sentence and to affirm the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the importance of considering all relevant factors when determining an appropriate sentence, including the defendant's cooperation with the authorities and the value of early guilty pleas in the administration of justice.

Orders