R v RLS - [2000] NSWCCA 175

CITATION: R v RLS [2000] NSWCCA 175

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60088/99

HEARING DATE(S): 1 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 May 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
RLS

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 21

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0404; 98/11/0635

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Patten DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: M Grogan
Appellant: MD Austin

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Service

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60088/99

HULME J
CARRUTHERS AJ

Monday, 1 May 2000

REGINA -v- RLS
JUDGMENT

1    HULME J : On 22 January 1999, this applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced by Judge Patten in respect of a number of offences. An indictment charged four, three of which were robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon, in two cases a .22 calibre shortened rifle and in one a knife, and the fourth was of assault with intent to rob whilst being armed with a knife. In connection with these offences, Judge Patten was also asked to take into account thirteen offences on a Form 1. These included four further offences of armed robbery, two of larceny on a motor vehicle, one of larceny from a motor vehicle, and one of escape from lawful custody. In the course of that escape the applicant committed two other offences, one of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a second of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm.

2    The applicant was also sentenced in respect of a further charge of robbery whilst armed, on this occasion the arm being a blood-filled syringe which he presented at the arm of an eight year old daughter of the driver of a motor vehicle which he stole. In connection with this offence, two further charges were taken into account. One was of escaping from lawful custody on 13 January 1998 and a second of failing to appear at the Children's Court on that day.

3    Most of the seventeen offences, the subject of the indictment and the first Form 1 were committed within the period 13 October 1997 to 5 November 1997 when the applicant was arrested. His first escape occurred on 19 November 1997 and the balance of those seventeen offences were committed between then and 21 November when he was again arrested. Thus, those offences suffered from the aggravating feature that they were committed while on bail.

4 The prisoner was re-arrested on 30 January 1998 and remained in custody thereafter. Thus prior to being sentenced by Judge Patten the applicant had been in custody for about one year and two months, that custody being referable to the offences for which his Honour sentenced the applicant. It is unnecessary for me to detail the circumstances of the twenty charges in respect of which the applicant stood to be sentenced. They are summarised in detail in Judge Patten's remarks on sentence and no exception has been taken to that summary. I have…

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 RLS

Details

AGLC: R v RLS [2000] NSWCCA 175
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 175
Decision Date: 1 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Criminal Appeal, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by Judge Patten in the District Court. The applicant had been convicted of multiple offences, including armed robbery and assault, and was sentenced to imprisonment. The applicant argued that Judge Patten failed to consider certain subjective factors relevant to sentencing, leading to an excessive sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether there were any errors in the sentencing process.

The Court found that Judge Patten had considered the subjective factors relevant to the applicant's circumstances, including his young age, efforts to address his addiction issues, and remorse. However, the Court also noted the seriousness and frequency of the applicant's offending behaviour. The Court held that the sentence imposed, while lengthy, was not excessive, given the nature and number of the offences. The Court found that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence, while also taking into account the applicant's age and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by Judge Patten. The Court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not warrant any alteration. The final order of the Court was that leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders