R v Riddell - [2000] NSWCCA 144

CITATION: R v RIDDELL [2000] NSWCCA 144

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60801 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): 10 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 April 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
John Riddell

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1; Dowd J at 9

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0310

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Morgan DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: MC Marien
Appellant: CB Craigie

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

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal allowed; Applicant sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 9 months including non-parole period of 5 months commencing on 25 January 2000 expiring on 24 June 2000 and the court direct that at the expiration of the non-parole period, the applicant be released on parole

- 2 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60801/99

HULME J
DOWD J

Monday 10 April 2000

REGINA -v-John RIDDELL

JUDGMENT

1    HULME J: This applicant for leave to appeal pleaded guilty at the Central Local Court on 27 May 1999 to a charge of escaping from lawful custody. He was committed to the District Court for sentence and on 7 December 1999 Morgan DCJ sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a period of 9 months, consisting of a 5 months minimum term commencing on 25 January 2000 and an additional term of four months commencing on 25 June 2000.
2    Her Honour found that the escape was a spur of the moment matter, not premeditated and that there were no aggravating features whatsoever. Her Honour tended to accept a submission that the escape was really a cry for help, rather than an attempt for personal freedom. The cry for help arose from the prisoner's concerns about the welfare of his wife who had threatened to commit suicide. The prisoner had made some attempts earlier that day to talk to some of the gaol authorities with a view to having some compassionate latitude extended to him but apparently was unable to talk to those whom he sought to approach. It is not clear whether there were other avenues he could have pursued, although there is certainly some suggestion that there were, albeit ones which he may not have been conscious of at the time.
3    Be that as it may, the escape occurred at a place where the prisoner was liable to be seen and was seen. He suffered some injury from the razor wire he encountered on the way out. Prison warders found him some very short distance from the gaol, walking along the road and he made no further attempt to escape and offered no resistance to them. He acknowledged his guilt at the first opportunity.
4    The ground of appeal is that, in the circumstances, the sentence was manifestly excessive.
5    The offence of which the applicant was guilty carries a maximum penalty of 10 years. In the circumstances which I have described, the case was clearly one which should have been treated by the sentencing Judge leniently but it is clear that…

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 Riddell

Details

AGLC: R v Riddell [2000] NSWCCA 144
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 144
Decision Date: 10 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Criminal Appeal, the case of Regina v Riddell was heard on 10 April 2000, where John Riddell appealed against his sentence for escaping from lawful custody. Riddell had pleaded guilty to the charge in the Central Local Court and was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment by the District Court. The appeal centred around the severity of the sentence imposed, which was considered by the appellant to be manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was indeed excessive, and whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the provisions of the Sentencing Act and the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The court was required to determine if the appeal should be allowed, and if so, whether the sentence should be altered. Additionally, the court needed to consider the procedural error in the sentencing order regarding parole eligibility.

The court found that although the sentence could have been more lenient, it was not outside the range of sentences available to the sentencing judge. However, there was an error in the sentencing order as the judge failed to direct Riddell's release on parole at the end of the minimum term, as required by statute. The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal due to the procedural error, and maintained the original sentence but directed that Riddell be released on parole at the end of his non-parole period. The court also found special circumstances justifying a change in the relativity of the non-parole period to the full sentence term.

Orders