R v W, J - [2010] SASC 203

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Criminal Appeal)
R v W, J
[2010] SASC 203
Judgment of The Court of Criminal Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Nyland, The Honourable Justice Gray and The Honourable Justice Vanstone)
1 July 2010
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - SENTENCING OF JUVENILES - RELEVANT FACTORS - GENERAL PRINCIPLES
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS
Appeal against sentence - defendant youth pleaded guilty to a number of offences committed in company of two other youths and an adult offender - two other youths successfully appealed against the sentences imposed - this Court held that in the circumstances their sentences were manifestly excessive - whether sentence of defendant manifestly excessive - whether justice of the case required reduction of defendant's sentence having regard to approach of Court when reducing the sentences of the other two youths.
Held: appeal allowed - appropriate to resentence defendant - new sentence imposed reflecting a similar reduction to that made in respect of the sentences imposed on other two youths.
Young Offenders Act 1993 (SA), referred to.
R v L-A, T & R v A, SA [2010] SASC 91, considered.

R v W, J
[2010] SASC 203
Court of Criminal Appeal Nyland, Gray and Vanstone JJ
NYLAND and GRAY JJ.

This is an appeal against sentence.
On the night of 6 and 7 December 2007, J, the appellant, together with two other youths, T and S, and an adult, committed a series of offences. J was aged 15 years and one month; T, 16 years and two months; S, 14 years and almost 11 months, and the adult was aged 24 years.
J pleaded guilty to 10 offences – two counts of aggravated robbery, one count of attempted aggravated robbery, one count of aggravated serious criminal trespass, two counts of aggravated threatening harm, two counts of theft and two counts of damaging property.[1] Each offence was serious.
[1] The maximum penalties for these offences are as follows:
•Aggravated robbery – life imprisonment pursuant to section 137(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
•Attempted aggravated robbery – imprisonment for 12 years pursuant to sections 137(1) and 270A Criminal Law Consolidation Act1935 (SA).
•Aggravated serious criminal trespass in a non-residential premises – imprisonment for 20 years pursuant to section 169(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
•Aggravated threatening life – imprisonment for 12 years pursuant to section 19(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
•Aggravated threatening harm – imprisonment for seven years pursuant to section 19(2) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
•Theft – imprisonment for 10 years pursuant to section 134(1) Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA).
•Damaging property – imprisonment for two years for damage less than $2,500 and imprisonment for three years for damage between $2,500 and $30,000 pursuant to section 85(3) Criminal…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v W, J and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] SASC 203
Decision Date: 1 July 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v W, J, the defendant, a youth, appealed against the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to a series of offences committed in conjunction with two other youths and an adult offender. The other two youths had previously succeeded in appeals against their sentences, which were deemed manifestly excessive. This court now considered whether the sentence imposed on the defendant was similarly excessive and whether the justice of the case required a reduction in his sentence, given the approach taken in reducing the sentences of the other two youths.

The primary legal issues were whether the defendant's sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the justice of the case necessitated a reduction in his sentence, taking into account the reductions made for the other two youths. The court had to balance the seriousness of the offences, the role of the defendant, and the principle of parity among co-offenders.

The court found that the defendant's appeal should be allowed, and it was appropriate to resentence him. The new sentence imposed reflected a similar reduction to that made for the other two youths. The court held that the justice of the case required a reduction in the defendant's sentence to ensure consistency with the sentences of his co-offenders. The new sentence took into account the factors that led to the reductions for the other two youths, ensuring parity among the co-offenders.

The final orders included the allowance of the defendant's appeal, the resentencing of the defendant to reflect the reduction applied to the other two youths, and the imposition of a new sentence accordingly. This decision ensured that the sentences of all co-offenders were aligned, maintaining consistency and fairness in the judicial process.

Orders