R v Sharrock - [1999] NSWCCA 289

CITATION: R v Sharrock [1999] NSWCCA 289

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60602/98

HEARING DATE(S): 6 September 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 September 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Trevor John Sharrock

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; James J at 10; Sperling J at 17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/31/0236; 98/31/0191; 98/31/0235.

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Woods QC DCJ

COUNSEL: Crown: R D Ellis.
Appellant: R Burgess

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor.
Appellant: T.A. Murphy.

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - sentence in serious rape equal to or exceed sentence in murder case - statutory order - error of no affect.

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted;; Sentence in relation to second victim be quashed; In lieu thereof, applicant be sentenced to a minimum term of penal servitude of ten years comecning 10 June 2001, expiring 9 June 2013; and additional term of six years commencing on 10 June 2013.; Sentences otherwise imposed by the sentencing judge are confirmed.

- 5 -
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
CCA: 60602/98
MEAGHER JA
JAMES J
SPERLING J

Monday, 6 September 1999
REGINA v Trevor John SHARROCK

JUDGMENT

1   MEAGHER JA: On 6 May 1997 the applicant/prisoner entered, without invitation, the isolated home of an elderly lady who was aged 80. She was sitting in a wheelchair. She had one leg amputated. After threatening her with a knife the applicant had sexual relations with her. She did not consent and he knew that she did not consent. It was, to use old fashioned language, a most reprehensible and disgusting rape. It is the worst that I have come across in my ten years on the bench. The trial judge was fully entitled to sentence him in regard to this offence to sixteen years, being a minimum term of twelve years and an additional term of four years.
2   To make matters worse this was only one of a series of sexual assault cases for which he was tried. There was another crime of sexual assault of a slightly less serious character on 12 April 1997 and another on 25 May 1997.
3   The psychologist's report which was tendered on his behalf makes the matter, in my opinion, worse still as it demonstrates that he was suffering from no psychiatric illness, and incredibly enough, had no anti-social tendencies. If anything is left in the applicant's favour it should be dispelled by consideration of the fact he had an appalling prior record. The total of his Honour's sentences in this regard are as follows: that he fixed a minimum sentence totalling eighteen years with the total of all sentences required to be served of twenty two years. That is four additional years in regard to all the cases. The prisoner is to be eligible for release on parole on 9 June 2015 with an additional term expiring in four years in 2019. 4   Ms Burgess, who conducted an extraordinarily capable defence, made a number of points. She submitted that the sentence on the most important…

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 Sharrock

Details

AGLC: R v Sharrock [1999] NSWCCA 289
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 289
Decision Date: 6 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sharrock involved the respondent, Sharrock, who was convicted of rape and other serious offences. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Sharrock for his rape conviction was inconsistent with the severity of his crime, particularly in comparison to the sentence imposed on another individual for the crime of murder. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the statutory order, which mandated that the sentence for the rape should be equal to or exceed the sentence for the murder, had been correctly applied.

The legal issue that the court had to decide was whether an error in the application of the statutory order, which led to a lesser sentence for the rape than for the murder, could be considered a material error affecting the outcome of the case. The court was tasked with interpreting the statutory provisions and determining the implications of any error on the overall sentence imposed on Sharrock.

The court held that any error in the application of the statutory order did not materially affect the outcome of the case. It found that the error did not alter the fact that the sentence for the rape was indeed equal to or exceeded the sentence for the murder, despite the procedural misstep. The court reasoned that the legislative intent was to ensure the severity of the sentence for serious crimes, and in this instance, the legislative goal was achieved. Therefore, the error was deemed inconsequential to the final outcome.

The court confirmed the sentence imposed on Sharrock and dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision. The court's ruling was that the error in the application of the statutory order did not undermine the legitimacy of the sentence for the rape, as it still met the legislative requirement of being equal to or greater than the sentence for the murder.

Orders