R v Trad - [2003] NSWCCA 213

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: R v Billy TRAD [2003] NSWCCA 213

FILE NUMBER(S):
60079/03

HEARING DATE(S): 15 July 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 31/07/2003

PARTIES:
Billy Trad - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA James J O'Keefe J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/21/0341, 00/21/1177, 99/21/0196

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Tupman DCJ

COUNSEL:
T J Golding - Applicant
D Howard - Crown

SOLICITORS:
D J Humphries - Applicant
S E O'Connor - Crown

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - Sentencing - Guilty Plea - Utilitarian Value - Relevance of other factors - Strength of Crown Case - Armed Robbery - Whether sentence manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted
Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60079/03
SHELLER JA
JAMES J
O’KEEFE J

R v Billy TRAD

The applicant was sentenced on charges contained in two indictments and six additional offences to be taken into account on the applicant’s request. The second of these indictments charged the applicant jointly with one Bill Chahrouk with five counts of robbery armed with an offensive weapon, with six additional offences to be taken into account. The first indictment charged the applicant alone with one count of attempted armed robbery and two counts of robbery. The applicant pleaded guilty to all charges, in summary being one count of attempted armed robbery, seven counts of armed robbery and one count of aggravated armed robbery with a further four counts of armed robbery and two of larceny motor vehicle, one count of receiving and two of resisting arrest to be taken into account as additional offences.

The sentencing Judge noted that the victims were usually young people, working alone in jobs that were not particularly well paid and that on all occasions the victims were put in fear, having knives or bars forced into their backs, being forced to the ground, being threatened and being led into store rooms and the like. Her Honour noted that severe punishment was called for for the offences in question.

The sentencing Judge acknowledged that the pleas of guilty had a utilitarian value nonetheless because the trial was to last three weeks and the Crown conceded that it did not have a particularly strong case against either offender, particularly Chahrouk. Her Honour considered that the combination of the utilitarian value of the plea and the recognition of the relative weakness of the Crown case gave rise to a discount but no more than a range of between 10 and 15 per cent. The combined effect of the sentences on both indictments was a total term of twelve years with a non-parole period of eight years.

It was submitted that her Honour erred in conflating two distinct principles in determining the appropriate discount to apply for the plea of guilty, those being the strength of the crown case against the accused and the utilitarian public benefit derived from the…

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 Trad

Details

AGLC: R v Trad [2003] NSWCCA 213
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 213
Decision Date: 31 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Trad involved the defendant, Trad, who was convicted of armed robbery. The central dispute in this case centred on the sentence handed down by the court, which the defendant argued was manifestly excessive. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the appropriateness of the sentence in light of various factors.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Trad was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the crime and other relevant factors. The court was required to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether the sentence reflected a just assessment of Trad's culpability and the severity of the crime. Another critical aspect was the relevance of the strength of the Crown's case and whether it warranted a harsher sentence. The court also needed to weigh in the utilitarian value of the sentence, which includes considerations of deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly examined the facts of the case and the evidence presented. It noted the severity of the crime, which involved the use of a weapon, and the impact on the victims. However, the court also considered Trad's guilty plea, which is typically a mitigating factor in sentencing. The court further evaluated the strength of the Crown's case, acknowledging that a strong case does not necessarily justify a harsher sentence if other mitigating factors are present. Ultimately, the court found that while the crime was serious, the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. The court upheld the original sentence imposed by the lower court.

Orders