R v Ross Aaron Robinson - [2001] NSWCCA 180

CITATION: R v Ross Aaron Robinson [2001] NSWCCA 180

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60621/98

HEARING DATE(S): 08/03/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
v
Ross Aaron Robinson

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Hulme J at 19; Smart AJ at 23

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 70215/96

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Hidden J

COUNSEL : A: P Byrne SC
R: G E Smith

SOLICITORS: A: Mark Klees & Associates
R: S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - application for leave to appeal against sentence - murder - guilty plea - felony murder - intent to kill - objective criminality. Special circumstances - appeal dismissed.

CASES CITED:
R v Mills (unreported, NSW CCA, 03/04/95)

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60621/98

MEAGHER JA

HULME J

SMART AJ

Thursday 8 March 2001

REGINA v ROSS AARON ROBINSON

JUDGMENT

1 MEAGHER JA: This is an application by Mr Robinson for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him by Hidden J on 15 October 1998. His sentence was twenty years penal servitude, comprising a minimum term of fifteen years and an additional term of five years. The offence immediately involved was murder and, if I may say so, murder of a particularly nasty kind.

2 In addition to the murder, there were also, as part of the initial proceedings, no less than ten charges of armed robbery.

3 The victim of the enterprise was a gentleman called Mr Cusumano, who was the manager of The Gamesmen computer store in Forest Road, Penshurst. Mr Robinson and two accomplices had planned for some time to rob this store. They arrived there late on late shopping night a few days before Christmas.

4 Mr Robinson was armed with a silver revolver, which he had gained possession of through an armed robbery about a week before. His two accomplices and he travelled on motor bikes, which were somewhat disguised from their normal kind and from which the registration plates had been removed. The faces of the three gentlemen had also been disguised. The robbery, from any point of view, must be considered to have been very carefully planned and intended.

5 When they arrived they ordered the staff and customers to lie on the floor. Mr Robinson's brother, Mr Seldon Robinson, menaced one of the staff with a shotgun and demanded that she open the till. He took money from the till and put it into a bag which he was carrying. He then ordered her to take him to the store's safe, which was in an office at the rear. Mr Aaron Robinson also went to the rear of the store where he confronted the unfortunate Mr Angelo Cusumano. He ordered him and some of his staff to lie on the floor. He demanded portable computers. Mr Cusumano, ostensibly in compliance with that demand, led him down some stairs to the basement. In that area apparently stock was kept and computers were assembled.

6…

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 Ross Aaron Robinson

Details

AGLC: R v Ross Aaron Robinson [2001] NSWCCA 180
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 180
Decision Date: 8 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ross Aaron Robinson involved the defendant who entered a guilty plea to a charge of murder. The specifics of the offence included elements of felony murder, where the defendant's intent to kill played a pivotal role in the court's consideration of the crime. The appeal before the court was for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, with the defendant arguing that the sentence was excessive given the special circumstances surrounding the offence. The court was required to assess the appropriate weight to be given to these circumstances in the sentencing process and whether the sentence was indeed harsh and oppressive.

The legal issues central to this appeal were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether special circumstances existed that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court needed to balance the objective criminality of the offence against the subjective factors presented by the defendant. Objective criminality referred to the inherent severity of the crime, while special circumstances included any mitigating factors unique to the defendant's situation. The court was also tasked with determining if the appeal was frivolous or vexatious, considering the severity of the offence and the defendant's plea of guilty.

In its reasoning, the court found that while the offence was of a high degree of culpability, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court noted the inherent dangers of allowing appeals against sentence in cases of murder, especially when the defendant has pleaded guilty. The court held that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to uphold the deterrent effect of sentencing in such cases. Furthermore, the court found that the appeal was not frivolous or vexatious, but given the nature of the offence and the defendant's plea, it was not in the public interest to allow the appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court emphasised the need to maintain the integrity of the sentencing process in cases of serious crimes, particularly where the defendant has admitted guilt. The decision underscored the importance of considering both objective criminality and any special circumstances in the sentencing of murder cases, while also highlighting the limited circumstances under which appeals against sentence would be entertained.

Orders