R v Skornia - [2000] NSWCCA 422

CITATION: R v SKORNIA [2000] NSWCCA 422

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60162/2000

HEARING DATE(S): 11 October 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 October 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Philip SKORNIA

JUDGMENT OF: Hulme J at 1; Barr J at 14

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/31/0486

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Coolahan DCJ

COUNSEL : Crown: P Hock
Appellant: C Lyons

SOLICITORS: Crown: SE O'Connor
Appellant: DJ Humphreys

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence is refused

- 5 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No: 60162/00

HULME J
BARR J

Wednesday, 11 October 2000

REGINA -v- Allan SKORNIA

JUDGMENT

1    HULME J: On 3 February 2000 this applicant for leave to appeal pleaded guilty to a charge to the effect that between 7 and 12 August 1999 at Cessnock he broke and entered a dwelling house and stole certain property therefrom. On 17 March Coolahan DCJ sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a minimum term of two years from the date of his arrest, namely, 18 October 1999 and an additional term also of two years.
2    On behalf of the applicant it is contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive. More particular grounds of appeal are that:-
1. It was not open on the evidence for his Honour to find the offence was accompanied by a "significant degree" of planning.
2. His Honour erred in that he gave the applicant's criminal history inappropriate weight in all the circumstances.

3. His Honour erred in failing to have any regard to the type of custody in which the applicant will be held.

3    It is convenient to deal with these three last grounds first.

GROUND 1

4    The words his Honour in fact used were "some significant degree of planning" and "some degree of planning." His Honour's conclusion in this regard seems to have been inspired in large part by evidence given by the applicant that he took with him two sports bags, each big enough to fit a cricket bat in, the quantity of goods stolen and possibly the improbability of the applicant having just happened upon premises wherein was, to use his Honour's words, the "veritable treasure trove" stolen.
5    Considered in isolation, the applicant's evidence of taking the sports bags with him could conceivably refer to taking them away from the premises broken into as part of the goods stolen. However, although there was reference to the stolen property, including a "Ventura motor bike carry bag", neither in the specification of the goods stolen nor in other material before his Honour was there any suggestion that sports bags had been stolen. In these circumstances his Honour was fairly entitled to conclude that the sports bags were taken to the scene of the crime by the applicant. Such a conclusion is sufficient to support his Honour's references to planning.

GROUND 2

6    The instant offence was the first time the applicant had been charged with breaking, entering and stealing. However, his antecedents include at least three prior…

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 Skornia

Details

AGLC: R v Skornia [2000] NSWCCA 422
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 422
Decision Date: 11 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered an application for leave to appeal against sentence from Philip Skornia, who pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a dwelling house and stealing property. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum term of two years from the date of his arrest, 18 October 1999, and an additional term of two years. Skornia argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and brought several grounds of appeal, including that the offence was not accompanied by a significant degree of planning, his criminal history was given inappropriate weight, and the type of custody in which he would be held was not considered.

The Court examined each ground of appeal. Regarding the planning of the offence, the Court found that Skornia's bringing sports bags to the crime scene was sufficient evidence to support the judge's conclusion of planning. As for the weight given to Skornia's criminal history, the Court noted that Skornia had multiple prior convictions for stealing and other offences, and his commission of the offence while on bail for other charges constituted a serious aggravating factor. The Court found no error in the judge's approach to Skornia's criminal history. Lastly, the Court held that the type of custody in which Skornia would be held was irrelevant to the sentencing process, as he had demonstrated a need for a high level of security through his conduct.

The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the normal range for such offences and was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders