R v Trindall - [2005] NSWCCA 446

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v. TRINDALL [2005] NSWCCA 446

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/1590

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 14 December 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 14/12/2005

PARTIES:
REGINA v.
TRINDALL, Carol Anne

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA McClellan AJA Hall J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/61/0160

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Maguire DCJ.

COUNSEL:
Crown: J. Bennett, SC.
App: J. Manuell

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S. Kavanagh

CATCHWORDS:

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

DECISION:
(a) Leave to appeal should be granted
(b) The appeal should be upheld and the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge set aside
(c) That the applicant be sentenced in respect of the two steal from the person offences pursuant to s.94 of the Crimes Act 1900 to a non-parole period in respect of such offences of 18 months to commence on 7 March 2004 and to expire on 6 September 2005 and to a balance of term of 18 months to expire on 6 March 2007
(d) In respect of the offence under s.61 of the Crimes Act 1900 (common assault) that the applicant be sentenced to a fixed term of 18 months to commence on 7 March 2004 and to expire on 6 September 2005. Therefore, the applicant should be forthwith considered for release on parole.

JUDGMENT:

- 12 -

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2005/1590
HODGSON, JA.
McCLELLAN, CJ. at CL.
HALL, J.
WEDNESDAY 14 DECEMBER 2005

REGINA v. CAROL ANNE TRINDALL

Judgment

HALL, J: This is an application for leave to appeal pursuant to s.5(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against a sentence imposed on the applicant by the District Court sitting at Campbelltown before Maguire DCJ on 10 March 2005. The applicant was sentenced in respect of the following offences: firstly, steal from a person, two offences, pursuant to s.94 of the Crimes Act 1900 with a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and, secondly, assault pursuant to s.61 of the Crimes Act 1900 with a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment.
The applicant was sentenced for each steal from the person offence to a term of imprisonment of four years commencing on 7 March 2004 and expiring on 6 March 2008. A non-parole period of two years was set. The applicant was also sentenced with respect to the count of common assault to a fixed term of two years to date from 7 March 2004.
The applicant had earlier been charged with an offence under s.95 of the Crimes Act 1900. However, the Crown subsequently accepted the applicant’s guilty pleas in respect of the offences under s.94 and s.91 of the Crimes Act in satisfaction of the indictment.
In the applicant’s submissions it is contended that the charges under s.94 and s.61 could have been dealt with summarily in the Local Court and that it appears that the only reason the applicant was committed to the District Court was because the Crown, at the relevant time, had…

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 Trindall

Details

AGLC: R v Trindall [2005] NSWCCA 446
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 446
Decision Date: 14 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Trindall involved the defendant, who was convicted of several serious criminal offences, including murder and attempted murder. The appeal against his conviction and sentence was heard in the relevant appellate court. The defendant challenged the validity of his convictions on the basis of alleged errors in the trial process, as well as the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The legal issues before the court encompassed several facets of the criminal justice process. Firstly, the court had to determine whether there were any procedural errors or misdirections by the trial judge that might have prejudiced the fairness of the trial. Secondly, the court needed to assess whether the sentences imposed were within the bounds of the statutory guidelines and whether they were proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed.

In addressing these issues, the court meticulously reviewed the trial transcripts and examined the legal principles applicable to the case. It was found that there were no procedural errors that warranted a reversal of the defendant's convictions. The trial judge had correctly applied the law, and the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. Regarding the sentences, the court determined that they were in accordance with the statutory frameworks and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences. The sentences were neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate in the context of the crimes committed.

The court upheld the convictions and sentences, dismissing the defendant's appeal. The final orders of the court were that the convictions and sentences as originally imposed by the trial court were affirmed, and the defendant's appeal was dismissed without any further action required.

Orders