Legal Research
Cases
R v Robinson

R v Robinson

Case [2002] NSWCCA 359 25 September 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Robinson [2002] NSWCCA 359

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60679/00

HEARING DATE(S): 24 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 September 2002

PARTIES :

R v Christopher Andrew Robinson

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA; Dunford J; Greg James J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70051/99

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Adams J

COUNSEL : T J Golding - Appellant
Dr P J Power - Crown

SOLICITORS: D J Humphreys - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - murder - offender aged 17 - would be worst case but for age - sentence of 45 years with 35 years non-parole period - whether error in finding no remorse - no error - whether error in not reducing sentence by virtue of plea of guilty - no error - whether sentence manifestly excessive - gravity of crime and need for protection of public - consideration of protection of public - need for protction properly founded in evidence - no appealable error as to head sentence - weighing of factors different for non-parole period - special circumstances - appealable error as to non-parole period. D.

CASES CITED:
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525;
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321;
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623;
R v Costen (1989) 11 Cr App R (S) 182,
R v Crump (CCA, 30 May 1993, unreported);
R v Elemes [2000]NSWCCA 235;
R v Fernando; R v Fernando (1977) 95 A Crim R 533;
R v GDR (1994) 35 NSWLR 376;
R v Glen [1999] NSWSC 1018;
R v Harrison (1997) 93 A Crim R 314;
R v Leonard (CCA, 7 December 1998, unreported);
R v Purdey (1992) 65 A Crim R 441;
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704;
R v Stabler (1984) 6 Cr App R (S) 129;
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383;
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109;
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656;
Veen v The Queen (No 1) (1979) 143 CLR 458;
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465.

DECISION: Grant leave to appeal, uphold the appeal, confirm the head sentence, but quash the non-parole period and in lieu thereof fix a non-parole period of 27 years to date from 22 January 1999. The earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole is 21 January 2026.

CCA 60679/00
SC 70051/99

GILES JA
DUNFORD J
GREG JAMES J
Wednesday 25 September 2002

R v ROBINSON

Judgment

1 THE COURT: The applicant pleaded guilty to the murder on 27 December 1997 of Trevor John Parkin. At the time of the offence the applicant was 17 years old. The maximum penalty for the offence was life imprisonment. On 19 October 2000 Adams J sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 45 years commencing on 22 January 1999, the date of the applicant’s arrest, with a non-parole period of…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Robinson [2002] NSWCCA 359
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 359
Decision Date: 25 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Robinson, was convicted of murder and sentenced to 45 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 35 years. The appeal focused on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed, particularly the non-parole period. The legal issues revolved around whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, if there was an error in the sentencing judge's assessment of remorse, and if the sentence should have been reduced due to the appellant's plea of guilty.

The court addressed these issues by first noting that while the sentence was severe, it was appropriate given the gravity of the crime and the need to protect the public. The court found no error in the sentencing judge's assessment that Robinson showed no remorse, as it was based on substantial evidence. The court also rejected the argument that the sentence should have been reduced due to the plea of guilty, stating that this was a matter of judicial discretion and did not constitute an error. However, the court found that there was an error in the calculation of the non-parole period, as the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the special circumstances of Robinson's age and the possibility of rehabilitation.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, but there was an appealable error in the non-parole period. The court quashed the non-parole period and remitted the matter to the sentencing court for reconsideration. The appellant's sentence of 45 years imprisonment with a new non-parole period to be determined by the sentencing court remains in place pending the outcome of the resentencing.

Orders