R v Roberts - [2003] NSWCCA 67

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Roberts [2003] NSWCCA 67

FILE NUMBER(S):
60216/02

HEARING DATE(S): 21 March 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 21/03/2003

PARTIES:
Regina v Grant John Roberts

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J Shaw J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/21/0244

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Nield DCJ

COUNSEL:
R.A. Hulme SC (Crown)
L. Flannery (Applicant)

SOLICITORS:
S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
D.J. Humphreys (Applicant)

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act s 97(1)

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60216/02
STUDDERT J
SHAW J
Friday 21 March 2003

REGINA v GRANT JOHN ROBERTS

Judgment

STUDDERT J: The applicant, Grant John Roberts, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by Nield DCJ in the District Court on 11 April 2002. The sentences that were imposed followed the applicant’s trial on three counts of armed robbery. The jury acquitted the applicant on one of the counts, but found him guilty on the remaining two counts.
In respect of the offences to which those two counts related, the applicant was sentenced following conviction as follows:
(i)in relation to the first of the established offences, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of four years and six months;
(ii) in relation to the second of the established offences, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years with a non-parole period of four years.
The fixed term sentence was expressed to commence on 9 August 2001 and to expire on 8 February 2006. The sentence in relation to the second offence was expressed to commence on 9 August 2003, and his Honour fixed a non-parole period to expire on 8 August 2007. The parole period therefore was from 9 August 2007 to 8 August 2009. I observe that the sentences were backdated to allow for periods earlier spent in custody.
Effectively then, what his Honour did was to impose in relation to the second of the offences attracting sentence, a sentence which was in part concurrent and part cumulative. The overall effect of the sentences involved a non-parole period of six years and a period within which the applicant was to be eligible for release of a further two years.
Each of these offences was in a category in respect of which s 97(1) of the Crimes Act imposed a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment.
The learned sentencing judge conveniently summarised the relevant objective facts concerning the two offences that were established. Each took place on 7 March 2001, and each involved crimes committed at pharmacies.
The applicant drove his motor bike to a pharmacy at Carlingford, arriving there at 3.15 pm. He entered the pharmacy wearing a black coloured full face motorbike helmet with a black balaclava or scarf wrapped around his face under the helmet. He carried a knife and a bag. He brandished the knife at two women serving in the shop and demanded money and drugs. He directed such items…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2003] NSWCCA 67
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 67
Decision Date: 21 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Roberts was presented, involving a dispute over the interpretation and application of the Crimes Act. The defendant, Roberts, was charged with assault occasioning bodily harm under section 97(1) of the Act. The specific issue before the court was whether the assault charge could be upheld under the statutory provisions when the victim's injuries were not immediately apparent but became evident at a later time. The court had to determine if the statutory requirement for the harm to be "bodily harm" included injuries that manifest after the initial assault.

The court examined the statutory definition of "bodily harm" and the temporal aspect of the harm's manifestation. It considered whether the harm needed to be immediately apparent or could be delayed. The court concluded that the statutory definition of "bodily harm" encompasses injuries that may not be immediately evident but become apparent later. This interpretation aligned with the broader legislative intent to protect individuals from harm caused by assaults, regardless of the timing of injury manifestation.

In its judgment, the court found that the statutory provisions were satisfied in Roberts' case, as the victim's injuries, though not immediately apparent, constituted "bodily harm" under the Crimes Act. The court rejected Roberts' argument that the harm needed to be immediately visible, affirming that delayed manifestation of injuries still qualified as bodily harm. Consequently, Roberts was found guilty of the assault occasioning bodily harm charge under section 97(1) of the Crimes Act.

Orders