Legal Research
Cases
R v Street

R v Street

Case [2005] NSWCCA 139 14 April 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Regina v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 12/04/2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

14 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Wood CJ at CL at 1; Grove J at 2; Hoeben J at 3

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed. Sentences imposed in District Court quashed - applicant re-sentenced.

CATCHWORDS:
Correct application of s21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, effect of finding of special circumstances on structure of sentences where more than one sentence is involved.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v LWP [2003] NSWCCA 215
R v Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
R v Tarek Mohamadin [2004] NSWCCA 401
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Walker [2005] NSWCCA 109
R v Wickham [2004] NSWCCA 193
R v Youkhana [2004] NSWCCA 412

PARTIES:
Matthew Thomas Street - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/94

COUNSEL:
M Johnston - Applicant
P Barrett - Crown

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor - Solicitor for Legal Aid
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/21/0239

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Delaney DCJ

2005/94

WOOD CJ at CL
GROVE J
HOEBEN J
Thursday, 14 April, 2005

REGINA v Matthew Thomas STREET

JUDGMENT

1 WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Hoeben J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour.

2 GROVE J: I agree with Hoeben J.

3 HOEBEN J:

Offences and sentence
On 18 June 2004 the applicant was sentenced as follows by Delaney DCJ at the Parramatta District Court.

(i) 24 November 2002 – armed robbery with a dangerous weapon at Toongabbie Bowling and Recreational Club in breach of s97(2) – maximum penalty 25 years imprisonment.
Sentenced to fixed term of 5 years to commence on 4 June 2003 and to expire on 3 June 2008.

(ii) 9 December 2002 – armed robbery with dangerous weapon at Stamford Hotel, Macquarie Park in breach of s97(2) Crimes Act .
Sentenced to fixed term of 5 years to commence on 4 December 2003 and expire on 3 December 2008.

(iii) 29 December 2002 – armed robbery with a dangerous weapon at Hunters Hill Hotel in breach of s97(2).
Sentenced to fixed term of 5 years to commence on 4 December 2004 and expire on 3 December 2009.

(iv) 13 January 2003 – robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon at Macquarie Park in breach of s97(1) Crimes Act 1900 – maximum penalty 20 years imprisonment.
Sentenced to fixed term of 4 years to commence on 4 June 2005 and expire on 3 June 2009.

(v) 13 January 2003 – be carried in conveyance without consent of owner in breach of s154A(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 – maximum penalty imprisonment for 5 years.
Sentenced to fixed term of…

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 Street

Details

AGLC: R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 139
Decision Date: 14 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Street involved the defendant, Street, who was convicted on multiple counts, leading to a complex sentencing issue. The matter was brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal, which was tasked with determining the appropriate application of section 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. The central issue revolved around how to structure the sentences when special circumstances were found to exist, particularly in cases where multiple sentences were involved. The court had to consider whether the special circumstances warranted a specific order under the Act and how this impacted the overall sentence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge had correctly applied section 21A in imposing the sentences and whether the finding of special circumstances necessitated a particular order under the Act. Additionally, the court examined the interplay between the various sentences and whether the cumulative effect of these sentences adequately reflected the severity of the crimes and the special circumstances identified. The court's analysis required a nuanced understanding of statutory interpretation and sentencing principles to ensure that justice was served appropriately.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously reviewed the trial judge's application of section 21A and found that there was a misinterpretation of the statutory requirements. The court clarified that when special circumstances are found, a specific order under the Act should be made, which includes the imposition of a non-parole period. The court determined that the sentences imposed were not aligned with the statutory mandate, leading to an order for re-sentencing. The court emphasised that the sentences should reflect the special circumstances and ensure that the overall punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the offences committed.

The final orders of the court mandated that the case be remitted to the sentencing court for re-sentencing in accordance with the principles outlined in the judgment. The court underscored the importance of correctly applying section 21A to ensure that the sentences imposed are both fair and legally sound, taking into account the special circumstances that were identified during the trial.

Orders