R v Sweetman - [2000] NSWCCA 228

NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Donald Conrad SWEETMAN [2000] NSWCCA 228

FILE NUMBER(S):
60536/99

HEARING DATE(S): 31 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 31/05/2000

PARTIES:
Regina
Donald Conrad SWEETMAN

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J Adams J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 99/11/0299

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL:
M.C. Marien - Crown
R.J. Button - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S. E. O'Connor - Crown
T. A. Murphy - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1901

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

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60536/99

SULLY J
ADAMS J

31 May 2000

REGINA v Donald Conrad SWEETMAN

JUDGMENT

SULLY J: This is an application by Mr Donald Conrad Sweetman for leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment that was passed upon his by his Honour Judge Gibson QC sitting in the Sydney District Court on 2 September 1999.
The applicant had pleaded guilty before a magistrate, and had adhered before his Honour to that plea, in respect of an offence of robbery. That offence contravenes s.94 of the Crimes Act 1901, and it attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for fourteen years. The sentence, in fact, passed upon Mr Sweetman was one of two and a half years, proportioned between a minimum term of twelve months and an additional term of eighteen months.
The facts can be shortly stated as follows: at about 9.30pm on Sunday 21 March 1999 the applicant entered a 711 store at Matraville. His entry into the store, and what he then did, were recorded by a video camera then installed upon the premises. There was in consequence little, if indeed any, room for argument about the actual course of the relevant events. That course of events is canvassed in all necessary detail by two statements that were before his Honour.
One is a statement from Mr Young Gin Kim who was the owner/manager of the store. The other was from Mr Jae Huang Kim who was at the relevant time working as a cashier in the store. Mr Kim, the owner/manager, describes as follows what happened:
"The male has been locked inside the counter area with his right hand under his shirt. I do not remember him saying anything. All I remember was he having his hand under his shirt. The man has pushed me and the staff back and grabbed all the notes from the cash register which was open at the time."
Mr Kim, the cashier, puts a slightly more detailed version of what happened. That version is as follows:
"At 9.30pm on that day the man coming running behind the counter towards the register. I tried to close the register but he pushed me a little bit and he scratched my hand a little bit. I saw him with his right hand beneath his shirt. I did not know what he had under his shirt.
He told us 'Move on'. My boss was on…

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 Sweetman

Details

AGLC: R v Sweetman [2000] NSWCCA 228
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 228
Decision Date: 31 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sweetman, the defendant stood accused of an offence under the Crimes Act 1901, with the particular charge related to a crime that occurred within the jurisdiction of the court. The nature of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of statutory provisions within the context of the defendant's actions. The matter was heard and determined in a court of competent jurisdiction in Australia.

The legal issues before the court required a careful examination of the statutory language and its application to the facts of the case. Central to the proceedings was the interpretation of specific provisions within the Crimes Act 1901, and whether these provisions were met in the circumstances presented. The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the elements of the offence as set out by the legislation.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously analysed the statutory language and its interaction with the facts of the case. The analysis included a consideration of precedent and statutory interpretation principles. The court concluded that the statutory provisions were applicable to the defendant's actions, and that the prosecution had met its burden of proof. Consequently, the defendant was found guilty of the offence as charged.

The final orders of the court included a determination of the defendant's guilt and a direction for the court to proceed with sentencing. The court's judgment provided clarity on the application of the statutory provisions in question and set a precedent for similar future cases.

Orders