R v Ridgeway - [2000] NSWCCA 286

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v D B K Ridgeway [2000] NSWCCA 286

FILE NUMBER(S):
60203/00

HEARING DATE(S): 04/08/00

JUDGMENT DATE: 24/08/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
Daniel Brent Kenneth Ridgeway

JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA Grove J Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/21/1215

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Backhouse DCJ

COUNSEL:
L M B Lamprati/S Piedade (Crown/App)
R Burgess (Resp)

SOLICITORS:
S E O'Connor (Crown/App)
D J Humphreys - LAC (Resp)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence
Sentencing guidelines - armed robbery
If departure from guidelines, reasons should be given
Whether double jeopardy justifies not altering non-parole period

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Appeal Act, 1912 - s5D
Crimes Act, 1900 - s97(1): s114: s188: s195
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act, 1985 - s25

DECISION:
Ref para 52

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60203/00

BEAZLEY JA
GROVE J
KIRBY J

Thursday 24 August 2000
REGINA v Daniel Brent Kenneth RIDGEWAY
JUDGMENT

BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Kirby J.
**********
GROVE J: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Kirby J in draft form. Save the specification of a non-parole period exactly equivalent to the minimum term imposed by Backhouse DCJ, I agree with that judgment.
It seems to me that the conclusions that the sentences in the District Court were manifestly inadequate and that the case was not one for the exercise of the residual discretion of this court to dismiss a Crown appeal could not stand consistently with a resentence in which the mandatory period of custody did not vary, and necessarily vary upwards.
For the reasons given by Kirby J there is cause for optimism about the respondent’s future which I share but in my opinion the very least non parole period should be one fixed at two and one half years.
I would allow the Crown appeal and quash the sentences below and in lieu thereof sentence the respondent on each count to imprisonment for four years with a non parole period of two and one half years, sentence and non parole period commencing on 1 June 1999. Sentences to be served concurrently and earliest date of eligibility for parole specified as 30 November 2001.
**********
KIRBY J: This is a Crown appeal against sentence (s5D Criminal Appeal, Act 1912). The Director of Public Prosecutions appeals against the sentence imposed by her Honour Judge Backhouse QC upon Daniel Brent Kenneth Ridgeway on 11 February 2000.
Mr Ridgeway pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon (s97(1) Crimes Act, 1900). He also asked her Honour to take account of a number of offences which were included on Form 1. There were ten such charges, as follows:

two charges of malicious damage to property (s195 Crimes Act)
five charges of stealing
a charge of receiving (s188 Crimes Act)
a charge of possessing without lawful excuse implements capable of being used to enter a conveyance (s114 Crimes Act)
possessing a prohibited…

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 Ridgeway

Details

AGLC: R v Ridgeway [2000] NSWCCA 286
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 286
Decision Date: 24 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Crown appealed against the sentencing of Ridgeway, who was convicted of armed robbery. The Crown submitted that the sentence imposed was inadequate, particularly in light of the guidelines established for such offences. The appeal was heard by the court, which had to determine whether the sentence was indeed inadequate and, if so, whether the Crown was justified in its appeal. Additionally, the court examined whether the failure to provide reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines was a valid ground for appeal and whether the principle of double jeopardy precluded the court from altering the non-parole period.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed was inadequate, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It was noted that armed robbery is a serious crime that involves a high degree of planning and violence, and the court must ensure that the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence. The court also examined the reasons provided for any departure from the sentencing guidelines and whether the failure to provide such reasons justified altering the sentence. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the principle of double jeopardy, which protects against being tried twice for the same offence, precluded the court from modifying the non-parole period.

The court found that the sentence imposed on Ridgeway was indeed inadequate, given the seriousness of the armed robbery offence and the need for deterrence. It was held that the failure to provide reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines was a significant error, as it undermined the principles of transparency and accountability in sentencing. The court emphasised that any departure from the guidelines must be accompanied by clear and compelling reasons to justify the deviation. Regarding the principle of double jeopardy, the court determined that it did not preclude the court from altering the non-parole period in this case, as the primary concern was ensuring that the sentence reflected the true gravity of the offence and served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation.

The court accordingly allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered that Ridgeway be re-sentenced, with appropriate consideration given to the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to sentencing guidelines and providing clear reasons for any departure from those guidelines. The non-parole period was also to be re-evaluated to ensure that it appropriately reflected the gravity of the offence and served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and denunciation.

Orders