R v Rowley - [2004] NSWCCA 388

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v ROWLEY [2004] NSWCCA 388 revised - 23/11/2004

FILE NUMBER(S):
60026/04

HEARING DATE(S): 29 July 2004

JUDGMENT DATE: 12/11/2004

PARTIES:
Crown - Respondent
Reggie Robert ROWLEY - Applicant

JUDGMENT OF: Adams J Hislop J Newman AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2002/0207

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Milson DCJ

COUNSEL:
S Kluss - Applicant
E Wilkins - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
S O'Connor - Applicant
S Kavanagh - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law
sentencing
principles
Drug Court
competency of appeals
constitution of Court of Criminal Appeal

LEGISLATION CITED:
Court of Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes Act 1900

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismised

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60026/04
ADAMS J
HISLOP J
NEWMAN AJ
12 November 2004

REGINA v Reggi Robert ROWLEY

Judgment

THE COURT: The Court in an earlier judgment has dealt with the jurisdictional issues raised in this matter. As a result Newman AJ has, pursuant to s 5AF of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act 1912, determined the matters which have come before the Court pursuant to s 5AF of that Act.
It is now for the Court of Criminal Appeal sitting as a collegiate bench to determine the matter which it has determined comes before it pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act. That matter involves the applicant’s application to appeal against the part of his Honour Judge Milson’s sentence involving the crime of aggravated break, enter and steal contrary to the provisions of s 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900. That section of the Crimes Act stipulates a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment for the crime. In the event, his Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment for two years and three months to date from 19 May 2003 and expire on 18 August 2005. That sentence involved concurrence with the sentence imposed for a similar crime in relation to the matters which fell within the concept of Category 1 crimes committed by the applicant.
The facts of the matter are in small compass. On 5 August 2002 at about 9.30 pm the victim of the crime retired to bed after checking that all the windows and doors of the subject premises were secured. On awakening the next day the victim found that the rear door had been opened and that property was missing. The missing property involved a Bank of Queensland access card, one black canvass bag containing a black leather wallet, a set of house and car keys with a lighter, a New South Wales driving licence, one pair of sunglasses, a Westpac Visa card and ready card, one Nokia telephone and $20 in cash. None of the saleable items were recovered and the victim claimed compensation in the sum of $3,063. It should also be noted that one of the bankcards which the applicant stole was used to obtain $1,000 which was the subject of the summary charge which…

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 Rowley

Details

AGLC: R v Rowley [2004] NSWCCA 388
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 388
Decision Date: 12 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rowley involved the defendant, Rowley, who was convicted of drug-related offences and subsequently sentenced in the Drug Court. The matter reached the Court of Criminal Appeal, where Rowley contested the competency of his appeal on the grounds that the Drug Court was improperly constituted. The court was required to determine whether the Drug Court's composition complied with statutory requirements and whether the appellant's right to a fair hearing was thereby compromised.

The primary legal issue was whether the Drug Court was properly constituted in accordance with the relevant legislation. The court had to examine the statutory framework governing the establishment and operation of the Drug Court, particularly focusing on the qualifications and appointment of the judges. Rowley's counsel argued that the Drug Court judges did not meet the necessary criteria, rendering any decisions made by the court null and void. The prosecution, on the other hand, maintained that the Drug Court was appropriately constituted and that any procedural irregularities did not affect the fairness or validity of the trial and sentencing process.

In its decision, the Court of Criminal Appeal thoroughly reviewed the statutory provisions and the evidence presented regarding the qualifications of the Drug Court judges. The court concluded that the Drug Court was indeed properly constituted under the law and that any perceived deficiencies did not undermine the court's authority or the fairness of the proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the Drug Court was upheld. The court further noted that Rowley's right to a fair hearing was not prejudiced by the constitution of the Drug Court.

Orders