Legal Research
Cases
R v Trindall

R v Trindall

Case [2002] NSWCCA 364 30 August 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 133 A Crim R 119

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Trindall [2002] NSWCCA 364

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60020/02

HEARING DATE(S): 05/03/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 August 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Mark Anthony Trindall

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Grove J at 2; Smart AJ at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/31/0209

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Mahoney ADCJ

COUNSEL : (C) R A Hulme
(R) C B Craigie SC

SOLICITORS: (C) S E O'Connor
(R) Kamilaroi Aboriginal Legal Service

CATCHWORDS: Remand on charge of robbery in company to enable offender to undergo rehabilitation so judge could assess non-parole period to be fixed - Court had jurisdiction to entertain Crown appeal - Effect of s.11 of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 on previous law - Remand must be to specified date within 12 months of the finding of guilt.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Imperial Acts Application Act 1969
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Bail Act 1978

CASES CITED:
Griffiths v The Queen (1976-77) 137 CLR 293 at 320-321
R v Tindall & Gunton (1993) 74 A Crim R 275
R v Crotty (unrep) CCA 28/2/1994
R v Khoury (unrep) NSWCCA 5/12/94
R v Hartley (unrep) NSWCCA 28/8/96
R v King (unrep) NSWCCA 3/10/96
R v Kerr (unrep) 26/8/97
R v FR (unrep) NSWCCA 28/5/98
R v Moore (unrep) NSWCCA 23/4/98
R v DWD (unrep) NSWCCA 2/3/98
R v Tocknell (unrep) NSWCCA 28/5/98
R v Clark (1997) 95 A Crim R 585
R v Jones (unrep) NSWCCA 15/4/94

DECISION: See para 67

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60020/02

SPIGELMAN CJ

GROVE J

SMART AJ

Friday, 30 August 2002

REGINA v MARK ANTHONY TRINDALL

JUDGMENT

1. SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with the judgment of Smart AJ.

2. GROVE J: I agree with Smart AJ.

3. SMART AJ: The Crown appeals against the alleged inadequacy of orders made by Mahoney ADCJ on 13 December 2001 whereby on a charge of robbery in company Mr Trindall was remanded to a date and place to be fixed by the Crown in consultation with the Court and his legal representatives. The judge granted Mr Trindall bail as from 14 December 2001 on the following conditions:

(i) he submit himself to the custody of his mother Mary Trindall immediately on
his release from gaol on 14 December 2001

(ii) he travel with her directly to Namatjira Haven, 100 Whites Lane, Alstonville

(iii) he present himself or admission to Namatjira Haven as a client pursuant to its
letters of 11 and 13 December 2001

(iv) he abide by all its rules

(v) he keep the peace during the whole of the term of this remand, however long
that may be

(vi) he continue to be a resident client at the Haven until such time as required by
the administrator of that Institution or until further order of any NSW court
(vii) he attend the NSW District Court whenever required to do so…

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 [2002] NSWCCA 364
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 364
Decision Date: 30 August 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Trindall, the defendant was charged with robbery in company and subsequently found guilty. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the defendant should be remanded in custody to enable him to undergo rehabilitation, thereby allowing the judge to assess the appropriate non-parole period to be fixed. The Crown appealed against the decision to release the defendant on bail pending sentencing, arguing that the trial judge had erred in not considering the defendant's need for rehabilitation. The appeal raised questions about the court's jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the effect of section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 on the previous law concerning remand orders.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the Crown's appeal and whether the trial judge had the authority to make a remand order to facilitate rehabilitation. The court also examined the proper interpretation of section 11 of the Act, which mandates that any remand order must be to a specified date within 12 months of the finding of guilt. The court was required to balance the defendant's right to liberty with the need for the judge to assess the appropriate non-parole period.

After careful consideration, the court determined that it did indeed have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and that the trial judge had the authority to make a remand order for rehabilitation purposes. The court found that section 11 of the Act did not preclude the trial judge from making such an order, as long as it was to a specified date within the 12-month period. The court held that the trial judge had erred in not considering the defendant's need for rehabilitation and that the appropriate remedy was to remit the matter to the trial judge for reconsideration of the remand order. The Crown's appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for further consideration by the trial judge.

The court ordered that the case be remitted to the trial judge for reconsideration of the remand order, taking into account the need for the defendant to undergo rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of assessing the appropriate non-parole period and the role of rehabilitation in the sentencing process. The court also clarified the scope of its jurisdiction to hear appeals in such matters and the proper interpretation of section 11 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Orders