R v Robinson - [2000] NSWCCA 182

CITATION: Regina v Robinson [2000] NSWCCA 182

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60052/00

HEARING DATE(S): 12/04/2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 June 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Jason Heath Robinson

JUDGMENT OF: Priestley JA at 54; Foster AJA at 1-53; Smart AJ at 55

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0503

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL : M C Marien - Crown
P R Boulten - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown
Hennan & Co - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: Appeal against sentences - sentences manifestly inadequate - break and enter to commit a felony and break, enter and steal and associated assault - common assault, use of offensive weapon, kidnapping and escape from custody - drug and alcohol abuse - decline of Magistrate to deal with charge until previous outstanding charge had been disposed of - special circumstances.

LEGISLATION CITED: s. 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912
s. 34(1) Correctional Centres Act 1952
ss. , 310D, 112 of the Crimes Act 1900
s. 51A of the Justices Act
s. 57 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
s 55(1) of the Interpretation Act 1987
ss. 5D, 26, 63 of the Criminal Appeal Act

CASES CITED:
R. v Thomson, CCA unreported 21 May 1986
R. v Machinroth, CCA unreported 1998
R v Ertl, CCA unreported 7 May 1997
R v Crombie, CCA unreported 15 May 1999
The Attorney-General's Application (No. 1)
R v Rose, CCA unreported 23 May 1996
Griffiths v R (1977) 137 CLR 293
R v Carrion, [2000] NSWCCA 191

DECISION: Refer para 53.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No 60052/2000
PRIESTLEY JA
FOSTER AJA
SMART AJ
Wednesday, 21 June, 2000

REGINA -V- Jason Heath ROBINSON

JUDGMENT
1 FOSTER AJA: The Director of Public Prosecutions brings this appeal, pursuant to s. 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, against two sentences imposed on the respondent in the Sydney District Court, on 22 November 1999, by Ainslie-Wallace DCJ. The sentences were in respect of a charge of escape from lawful custody (s. 34(1) Correctional Centres Act 1952) and one count of break, enter and steal (s. 112 Crimes Act 1900). In the sentence for the latter offence, her Honour took into account one offence of assault on a Form 1 document. The assault was associated with the break, enter and steal offence.
2 Her Honour, in respect of the offence of escape lawful custody, imposed a fixed term of penal servitude of six months to commence on 7 March 2000 and expire on 6 September 2000. For the other offence she sentenced the respondent to eighteen months penal servitude comprising a minimum term of nine months commencing on 7 June 1999 and expiring on 6 March 2000, together with an additional term of nine months commencing on 7 March 2000 and expiring on 6 December 2000.
3 The Director of Public Prosecutions submits that both sentences were manifestly inadequate. Before that submission is considered it is convenient to set out the context in which the…

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 [2000] NSWCCA 182
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 182
Decision Date: 21 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Robinson involved the appellant, Robinson, who was convicted of various criminal offences including breaking and entering to commit a felony, breaking, entering and stealing, and associated assault. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Australia, which was asked to review the sentences imposed on Robinson by the lower court. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate given the nature and seriousness of the crimes committed. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the lower court was correct in its refusal to deal with one of the charges until an outstanding matter from a previous case had been resolved.

The Supreme Court examined the severity and nature of the offences, noting Robinson's history of drug and alcohol abuse, which had contributed to his criminal behaviour. The court also looked at the cumulative effect of the various charges and sentences. The reasoning of the court focused on whether the sentences could be considered manifestly inadequate, taking into account the totality of the crimes and the appellant's background. The court determined that the lower court had not sufficiently considered the cumulative impact of the offences and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. Consequently, the sentences were deemed to be manifestly inadequate, and the appeal was allowed.

The Supreme Court ordered a re-sentencing of Robinson, directing the lower court to impose sentences that adequately reflected the seriousness of the crimes and took into account the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the offences committed and that they serve the broader purposes of the criminal justice system.

Orders