Legal Research
Cases
R v Sharma

R v Sharma

Case [2002] NSWCCA 142 24 April 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
54 NSWLR 300
130 A Crim R 238

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: REGINA v SHARMA [2002] NSWCCA 142

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60894/01

HEARING DATE(S): 15/4/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 April 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Ravinesh Dutt SHARMA

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Mason P at 86; Barr J at 87; Bell J at 88; McClellan J at 89

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0378

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Woods QC DCJ

COUNSEL : G E Smith / E A Wilkins (Crown)
C B Craigie SC / H Cox (Respondent)
R D Cogswell SC / M Buscombe / B Baker (Attorney General)
A C Haesler SC (Senior Public Defender)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Glenn K Walsh (Respondent)
I V Knight (Attorney General)
D J Humphreys (Public Defender)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - crown appeal against sentence - armed robbery in company - plea of guilty - whether error in separate account for and quantification of plea - "two stage approach" - whether error in taking into account utilitarian value of plea - objective and subjective considerations - "ambiguous" - whether R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 should be overruled - whether sentence manifestly inadequate - Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s22 - Interpretation Act 1987, s34

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Interpretation Act 1987
Penalties and Sentences Act 1985 (Vic)
Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)

CASES CITED:
AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111
Bowtell v Goldsborough Mort & Co Ltd (1905) 3 CLR 444
Cameron v The Queen [2002] HCA 6; 76 ALJR 382
Castlemaine Tooheys Ltd v South Australia (1990) 169 CLR 436
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v EI Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370
Ellerman Lines Ltd v Murray [1931] AC 126
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273
R v AEM Snr [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Donnelly [1998] 1 VR 645
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Giakas [1988] VR 973
R v Gray [1977] VR 225
R v Hall (1994) 76 A Crim R 454
R v Laurentiu and Becheru (1992) 63 A Crim R 402
R v Morton [1986] VR 863
R v Paull (1990) 20 NSWLR 427
R v Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
R v Place [2002] SASC 101
R v Powell [2001] SASC 450
R v Shannon (1979) 21 SASR 442
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
R v Sutherland (SASC, 16 November 1992, unreported)
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345
Repatriation Commission v Vietnam Veterans' Association (2000) 48 NSWLR 548
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 76 ALJR 79

DECISION: 1. Crown appeal allowed; 2. Sentence imposed quashed; 3. Respondent sentenced to two years imprisonment with a non-parole period of eighteen months,…

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 Sharma

Details

AGLC: R v Sharma [2002] NSWCCA 142
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 142
Decision Date: 24 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed on the appellant, Sharma, for his involvement in an armed robbery. Sharma pleaded guilty to the charge and the matter proceeded to sentencing where his sentence was determined. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine whether there was an error in the separate account for and quantification of Sharma's plea of guilty and whether the trial judge erred in taking into account the utilitarian value of the plea. The court also considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate under the relevant statutory provisions.

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that there was no error in the trial judge's approach to sentencing, finding that the separate account for and quantification of the plea was correctly applied. The court found that the trial judge appropriately took into account the utilitarian value of the plea and that there was no ambiguity in the approach taken. The court rejected the Crown's contention that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offence. The court also found that the trial judge had considered the relevant statutory provisions and had exercised his discretion appropriately.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that there was no error in the trial judge's approach to sentencing. The court found that the trial judge had considered all relevant factors and had exercised his discretion appropriately. The sentence imposed on Sharma was upheld.

Orders