R v Ronda Prestwidge - [2002] NSWCCA 439

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Ronda Prestwidge [2002] NSWCCA 439 revised - 26/02/2004

FILE NUMBER(S):
60905/01

HEARING DATE(S): 29/10/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 08/11/2002

PARTIES:
Regina
Ronda Shane Prestwidge

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/21/1166

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Freeman DCJ

COUNSEL:
P Barrett (Crown)
H K Dhanji (Appl)

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

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE
Parity
Discount for plea of guilty on utilitarian grounds
Home invasion

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act, 1900

DECISION:
Ref para 48

JUDGMENT:

Revised 26/2/04

THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60905/01
DUNFORD J
KIRBY J
Friday 8 November 2002

REGINA v Ronda Shane PRESTWIDGE

Judgment

DUNFORD J: I agree with Kirby J.
KIRBY J: Ronda Shane Prestwidge (the applicant) seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Freeman in the District Court on 13 December 2001. Ms Prestwidge was charged with breaking, entering and stealing from a dwelling in circumstances of aggravation, the circumstances being the malicious infliction of actual bodily harm (s112(2) Crimes Act, 1900) (the Act). Ms Prestwidge pleaded guilty to that offence. She asked his Honour to take account of a number of offences on a Form 1, namely, one count of larceny (s117 of the Act), and four counts of attempted break and enter with intent to steal (s112(1) of the Act).
His Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment of five years and three months, dating from Ms Prestwidge's arrest on 4 March 2001. He fixed a non parole period of three and a half years.
When sentencing Ms Prestwidge, his Honour also sentenced the person with whom she was in company, Mr John Carter. Mr Carter faced an indictment expressed in the same terms (including the Form 1). He, likewise, pleaded guilty. The sentence imposed upon Mr Carter was six years three months dating from 4 March 2001, with a non parole period of four years and six months.

The Offences

Ms Prestwidge is a woman aged 32 years. Some months before March 2001, she formed an association with Mr John Carter. Both were involved in drug taking. Each had a significant criminal record.
On 3 March 2001 at 10.30 pm, Ms Prestwidge and Mr Carter broke into a suburban dwelling occupied by Mr Hewitt. Mr Hewitt was aged 86 years. He lived alone. He heard the dog barking and went to investigate. He then saw Mr Carter and Ms Prestwidge rushing towards him. Mr Carter was armed with a screwdriver. He demanded money. Mr Hewitt said that he had none. Mr Carter then forced the victim's head to one side, holding the screwdriver to his throat. Ms Prestwidge remained in the near vicinity. Mr Carter repeated his demand for money. The victim directed his assailants to an ashtray where he had small change.
Mr Hewitt then cried out for help. Mr Carter responded by removing a pillow from behind Mr Hewitt's head. He placed it over…

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 Ronda Prestwidge

Details

AGLC: R v Ronda Prestwidge [2002] NSWCCA 439
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 439
Decision Date: 8 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Prestwidge involved a defendant, Ronda Prestwidge, who was charged with home invasion. The matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The defendant pled guilty to the offence of home invasion but contested the quantum of the penalty, arguing that a discount should be applied due to the utilitarian benefits of her plea. The court was tasked with determining whether such a discount was warranted and, if so, the extent of the discount.

The primary legal issue for the court was the appropriate application of the principle of parity in sentencing. Parity refers to the consistency in sentencing for similar offences. The court had to consider the utility of the defendant's early guilty plea, which included factors such as the preservation of judicial resources and the potential deterrence to others. The defendant argued that her early guilty plea should result in a reduction in her sentence, which would otherwise be at the higher end of the scale for home invasion offences. The prosecution contended that such a discount was not appropriate given the seriousness of the offence.

In delivering its judgment, the court acknowledged the principle of parity and the benefits of an early guilty plea. However, it found that the utility of the plea did not justify a significant reduction in the sentence. The court held that while the defendant's plea did contribute to the efficient administration of justice, the nature of the offence warranted a substantial penalty to reflect its seriousness and to deter similar conduct. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the defendant's early guilty plea to a limited extent but maintained a substantial penalty reflective of the gravity of the home invasion offence.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant, Ronda Prestwidge, was to serve a sentence that included a partial discount for her early guilty plea, while still reflecting the seriousness of the home invasion offence. The court's decision balanced the principles of parity and the utilitarian benefits of the plea, ultimately determining that the sentence should not be excessively reduced.

Orders