R v Speeding - [2001] NSWCCA 105

Reported Decision:
121 A Crim R 426

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Speeding, Bradley Adam [2001] NSWCCA 105

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60851/00

HEARING DATE(S): 21 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 March 2001

PARTIES :

R v Bradley Adam SPEEDING

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 35; Simpson J at 36

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/0205 & 00/21/0264

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Phegan DCJ

COUNSEL : R Cogswell SC& B Baker - Crown
C Craigie - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown
Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Service - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING - Crown appeal - six robberies armed with a knife in the space of six months - failure to give sufficient weight to multiplicity of offences and fact two were committed while on bail - failure to give sufficient weight to serious impact on victims - lack of reasonable proportionality between objective gravity of offences and subjective matters - sentences increased.

CASES CITED:
R v Allpass (1994) 73 A Crim R 561
R v Bavadra (2000) NSWCCA 292
R v Dodd (1991) 57 A Crim R 349
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Richards (1982) 2 NSWLR 464
R v Wheeler (2000) NSWCCA 34

DECISION: Appeal upheld. Five of six sentences quashed and in lieu respondent sentenced in manner described in para [31] as altered in the addendum in para [35]. Orders made in accordance with short minutes.

IN THE COURT

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 60851/00

DC 00/21/0205 & 00/21/0264

GILES JA
WOOD CJ at CL

SIMPSON J

Wednesday 21 March 2001

R v Bradley Adam SPEEDING

JUDGMENT

1 GILES JA: The respondent entered pleas of guilty to five charges of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon and one charge of robbery simpliciter. The offences, for the former of which a maximum penalty of imprisonment for twenty years is provided, were committed over a period of six months from the end of April 2000 to the beginning of October 2000. Five of the charges, those of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon, came before the District Court as committals for sentence pursuant to s 51A of the Justices Act 1902. The respondent was committed for trial on the sixth charge, that of robbery simpliciter, and entered his plea of guilty on arraignment.

2 In order of commission of the offences, with the qualification next mentioned, the sentences imposed were as follows:

(a) offence committed on 29 April 2000: imprisonment for three years and six months with a non-parole period of one year;
(b) offence committed on 2 May 2000: imprisonment for three years and six months with a non-parole period of one year;
(c) offence committed on 4 May 2000: imprisonment for three years and six months with a non-parole period of one year;
(d) offence committed on 15 May 2000, this being the charge of robbery simpliciter on which the respondent was arraigned: imprisonment…

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 Speeding

Details

AGLC: R v Speeding [2001] NSWCCA 105
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 105
Decision Date: 21 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Crown against the sentences imposed on the respondent, who had been convicted of six robberies committed over six months, all while armed with a knife. The sentencing judge had handed down sentences that were deemed insufficiently severe by the Crown, which sought a higher penalty. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The court had to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the seriousness of the crimes, particularly in failing to adequately consider the cumulative effect of the multiple offences, the fact that two of these were committed while the respondent was on bail, and the significant impact on the victims. The appeal also challenged the proportionality between the objective gravity of the offences and the subjective factors considered by the sentencing judge.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the sentencing judge had not sufficiently accounted for the cumulative effect of the multiple offences and the fact that two of these were committed while on bail. The court also noted that the impact on the victims was not given enough weight. Consequently, the sentences were deemed to lack reasonable proportionality. As a result, the court increased the sentences imposed on the respondent. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences were varied accordingly.

Orders