Legal Research
Cases
R v Stanley

R v Stanley

Case [2003] NSWCCA 233 19 August 2003

Aboriginal Background

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Anissa Maude Stanley [2003] NSWCCA 233

HEARING DATE(S): 19 August 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 59; Sully J at 1; Hidden J at 60

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal against sentence dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

CASES CITED: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Reg v Cross [2002] NSWCCA 172
Reg v Pitt [2001] NSWCCA 125
Reg v Pham and Ly (1991) 55 A Crim R 128

PARTIES :
Regina
Anissa Maude Stanley

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60142/03

COUNSEL: D. Arnott - Crown
C. Craigie SC - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
D. J. Humphreys - Appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 1/61/0063

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Woods DCJ

60142/03

SPIGELMAN CJ
SULLY J
HIDDEN J
19 August 2003

REGINA v ANISSA MAUDE STANLEY

Judgment

1 SULLY J: This is an application by Anissa Maude Stanley for leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment that was passed upon her in the District Court at Dubbo on 24 October 2002.

2 On 22 October 2002 the applicant was arraigned upon an indictment charging that on 9 February 2002, and at a time when she was in company with one Bianca Hammond and one S.P, she assaulted one Brian Kerrigan with intent to rob him. (This co-accused was a juvenile. She will be referred to herein only by her initials.) Such an offence contravenes section 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years. The sentence ultimately passed upon the applicant was one of imprisonment for 3 years with a non-parole period of 2 years.

3 The material facts can be taken as follows from the remarks on sentence:

“The facts are that the prisoner accosted the victim in Macquarie Street, Dubbo at about 1.30 p.m. on 9 February. The victim knew the prisoner through them both residing at Wellington. The prisoner persuaded the victim that she could get him some beer at cheap rates, and the victim withdrew some cash from an ATM. Meanwhile the prisoner had made some communication with the two other offenders who had remained concealed. All of this was observed by police who were suspicious about the behaviour. The prisoner then persuaded the victim to walk away from the shopping area and the two other offenders were following not far behind. The other offenders then joined up with the prisoner and the victim, and then as they walked along the three girls grabbed the victim and threw him to the ground and tried to get his wallet from him. The police came upon the scene and apprehended the girls. The victim suffered some abrasions.”

4 The following grounds were advanced in support of the application, and in support also of the substantive appeal, should leave to appeal be…

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 Stanley

Details

AGLC: R v Stanley [2003] NSWCCA 233
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 233
Decision Date: 19 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Anissa Maude Stanley [2003] NSWCCA 233, Anissa Maude Stanley appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, arguing that the sentence was excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider her youth, Aboriginal background, and the fact that she was a ringleader in the offence. The appeal was heard by Spigelman CJ, Sully J, and Hidden J. The court considered seven grounds of appeal, including whether the sentencing judge erred in applying the guideline judgment from R v Henry and whether the judge adequately considered the appellant’s disadvantageous background and youth. The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in applying the Henry guidelines, and that the appellant's background and youth were appropriately considered. The court also found that the characterisation of the appellant as a ringleader was justified by the evidence. Ultimately, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal against sentence, though it granted leave to appeal against the sentence.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the sentencing considerations, including the nature of the offence, the appellant's role, and the impact of her background and age. The judges emphasised the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence, while also acknowledging the appellant's youth and disadvantaged background. The decision underscores the importance of balancing objective factors, such as the severity of the crime, with subjective factors, such as the offender's personal circumstances, in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders