Legal Research
Cases
R v Wheeler

R v Wheeler

Case [2000] NSWCCA 34 16 February 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60298/99

HEARING DATE(S): 16/2/2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 February 2000

PARTIES :

Regina
Matthew Wheeler

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 51

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/31/0001

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kirkham DCJ

COUNSEL : C. K. Maxwell QC - Crown
P. Hamill - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
T. A. Murphy - Appellant

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Pearce v The Queen - High Court of Australia
Regina v Henry
Regina v Budd

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; Sentences imposed in Court below quashed; Re-sentenced as per judgment

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60298/99
SULLY J
CARRUTHERS AJ
16 February 2000

REGINA v Matthew WHEELER
JUDGMENT

1 SULLY J: : Mr Matthew Wheeler applies for leave to appeal against a number of sentences imposed upon him on 19 May 1999 by his Honour Judge Kirkham sitting in the District Court at Gosford. Mr Wheeler had pleaded guilty to seven counts, each of which charged against him a significantly serious criminal offence. 2 Four of the seven matters involved a charge of robbery, a contravention of s 94 of the Crimes Act 1900, attracting upon conviction a maximum statutory penalty of imprisonment for fourteen years. 3 There was a single count of attempted robbery, a contravention of, in combination, ss 94 and 344A of the Crimes Act 1900 and attracting upon conviction a maximum penalty of imprisonment of fourteen years. 4 Counts 5 and 6, the remaining two counts, each charged the offence of robbery in company, such offence being a contravention of s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 and attracting upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for twenty years. 5 The applicant asked that there be taken into account in connection with his sentencing other matters listed on a Form 1. They involved two matters of assault; and four matters each involving the theft of a motor vehicle. 6 The learned primary Judge dealt with the application as follows: on the first two counts, each of which was a count of robbery, his Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment for twelve years apportioned between a minimum term of nine years and an additional term of three years; and each such sentence was ordered to be served concurrently. In respect of each of the outstanding five matters, his Honour imposed a sentence of imprisonment for four years as a fixed term, and dated so as to be served concurrently with the sentences passed upon counts 1 and 2. His Honour took into account in the appropriate way the matters that had been placed before him on the Form 1. 7 The seven matters now in point were committed on seven separate days as follows: 5 May 1998, 14 May 1998, 5 June 1998, 21 August 1998, 18 September 1998, 21 September 1998 and 25 September 1998. In other words, the applicant stood for…

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 Wheeler

Details

AGLC: R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 34
Decision Date: 16 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Wheeler involved Matthew Wheeler appealing against the sentences imposed on him by the District Court. Wheeler had pleaded guilty to seven counts of robbery and related offences. The lower court had sentenced him to twelve years for two counts, and four years for the remaining five counts, all to be served concurrently. Wheeler's appeal was grounded on two arguments: firstly, that the sentencing judge did not correctly consider the appropriate sentence for each individual offence as required by Pearce v The Queen, and secondly, that the sentences imposed were excessively severe compared to the statistical range of sentences for similar offences. The Court of Criminal Appeal considered these arguments and found merit in the latter, noting that the sentences imposed by the District Court were indeed at the upper limit of the relevant pre-existing range of sentences. The Court also found that the sentencing judge had erred in not considering the appropriate sentence for each individual offence. Consequently, the Court granted Wheeler leave to appeal, quashed the sentences imposed by the lower court, and re-sentenced Wheeler to eight years for two counts and four years for the remaining five counts, all to be served concurrently.

The Court of Criminal Appeal thus re-evaluated the sentences in light of the established legal principles and statistical data, ultimately reducing Wheeler's sentence from twelve years to eight years. The decision underscores the importance of balancing the principles of totality and public confidence in the administration of criminal justice when sentencing multiple offences.

Orders