Regina v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S):
01/02/2006
JUDGMENT DATE:
10 March 2006
JUDGMENT OF:
Giles JA at 1; Howie J at 2; Hoeben J at 19
DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Crown appeal allowed. Respondent resentenced.
CATCHWORDS:
Crown appeal on sentence - offence of break enter and steal in circumstances of aggravation - inappropriateness of suspended sentences - pleas of guilty not "early" and limited utilitarian value - incorrect use of prior offences - relevance of standard non-parole period - sentences manifestly inadequate - proper sequence of reasoning when formulating a sentence - principles applicable on resentencing.
Crown - Applicant Anthony Michael Stambolis - Respondent
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/1550
COUNSEL:
W Dawe QC - Applicant Crown G Bashir - Respondent
SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Applicant Crown S O'Connor, Legal Aid Commission - Respondent
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/11/1512; 04/11/1544
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
Geraghty DCJ
2005/1550
GILES JA HOWIE J HOEBEN J
Friday, 10 March, 2006
REGINA v Anthony Michael STAMBOLIS
JUDGMENT
1 GILES JA: I agree with Hoeben J.
2 HOWIE J: I have read the judgment of Hoeben J in draft. I agree with his Honour’s reasons for allowing the Crown appeal and the orders he proposes. I simply wish to comment on four other matters arising from the sentencing remarks of Judge Geraghty (the Judge) that were not the subject of grounds of appeal by the Crown and, therefore, were not considered in determining the Crown appeal. They do, however, reveal significant errors in the exercise of discretion otherwise than were relied upon by the Crown and upon which the appeal was determined.…
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 Stambolis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Stambolis [2006] NSWCCA 56
Case
[2006] NSWCCA 56
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Stambolis appealed against his sentence for breaking and entering and stealing, circumstances of aggravation. The Crown sought an appeal on the ground that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. The case came before the court which had to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the sentencing process adhered to the proper principles. The court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of aggravation, and the need for general deterrence. The court also noted that the defendant's pleas of guilty were not early, and did not have the same utility as an early guilty plea. Furthermore, the court found that the sentencing magistrate had incorrectly considered prior offences and did not give proper weight to the standard non-parole period. The court held that the proper sequence of reasoning when formulating a sentence involved considering the culpability of the offence, the harm caused, the need for general deterrence, and the defendant's personal circumstances. The court also emphasised the importance of proportionality and consistency in sentencing. The court allowed the Crown's appeal, quashed the sentence imposed by the sentencing magistrate, and remitted the matter to the Magistrates' Court for resentencing. The court provided guidance on the principles applicable on resentencing, emphasising the need to consider the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances of aggravation, and the need for general deterrence.