R v Wall

Case [2000] SASC 177 27 June 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

R v WALL and RICHARDS
[2000] SASC 177
Court of Criminal Appeal:          Duggan, Mullighan, Gray JJ
Appeal against Sentence
1      DUGGAN J.              In my view the appeals should be dismissed for the reasons given by Gray J.
2      MULLIGHAN J       I agree that the appeals should be dismissed for the reasons given by Gray J.
3      GRAY J.  The appellants Richards and Wall pleaded guilty to armed robbery and were each sentenced to imprisonment for a period of six years with a non-parole period of three years. Both have appealed against the sentences imposed.
4      The common issue raised by both appeals was that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.
5      Counsel for the appellants put a joint submission and did not seek to differentiate between them. Counsel for the DPP did not suggest the appellants should be dealt with other than on a common basis.
6      Shortly after midnight on 24 May 1999 Wall and Richards, with a co-offender Mortimer, went to a house in Ardrossan and entered by the back door. Once in the premises they sought out a bedroom in which the occupant, Mrs Hicks, was asleep. She awoke being aware of gloved hands over her face holding her head down onto the pillow. Wall held Mrs Hicks down and Richards proceeded to apply tape across her eyes. Mrs Hicks called for help and was struck in the face about the left eye by a hard object. She was then warned that if she screamed or yelled she would be shot. She was hit several further times about the head. She complained that she couldn't breathe when a gag was being applied to her mouth and they desisted. Wall tied her hands in front of her with tape around her wrists. At the time she was naked. Clothing was provided to cover her. By this time the tape over her eyes had slipped and she had limited vision. She was aware of three male intruders and that they were armed. Mortimer was doing most of the talking and demanded money. She told him that there was a purse in a dresser drawer where there was about $400. Mortimer then demanded the keys to the hotel and she told him where they were. Mortimer forced her to the dining-room, took a small wallet and a set of keys.
7      She was then forced out of the house to her nearby hotel. Mortimer held the back of her neck and one of the others held her arm. She was hit again whilst being taken to the hotel and felt and saw a gun barrel pressed against her left arm above the elbow. The pressure was sufficient to break her skin. She also observed a wooden club being carried. The hotel was then ransacked, money was taken from the safe and poker machines, cigarettes taken from a shelf and liquor from behind the bar. During this time Mrs Hicks was being restrained. She was then taped to a pillar…

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 Wall

Details

AGLC: R v Wall [2000] SASC 177
Case: [2000] SASC 177
Decision Date: 27 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Criminal Appeal, Duggan, Mullighan, and Gray JJ heard the appeals of Richards and Wall, who had been sentenced to six years imprisonment each with a non-parole period of three years, after pleading guilty to armed robbery. The appellants argued that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The crime involved a well-planned attack on a woman in her home, with the use of weapons and threats. The appellants' cooperation with the police, including providing information that led to the apprehension of their co-offender, Mortimer, and their willingness to testify against him, were considered mitigating factors. The judges acknowledged the importance of a reduction in sentence for pleas of guilty and cooperation with the authorities, as it encourages offenders to admit their guilt and assists in the administration of justice. However, the sentencing judge did not explicitly state the extent of the reduction for these factors, leaving the Court to infer the discounts applied. Despite this, the judges concluded that the sentences imposed were proportionate to the gravity of the offence and appropriate, considering the appellants' age, lack of prior serious criminal history, and remorse. The appeals were dismissed.

Orders