R v Whitby

Case [2015] NSWDC 287


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Whitby [2015] NSWDC 287
Hearing dates:21 August 2015
Date of orders: 21 August 2015
Decision date: 21 August 2015
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Berman SC DCJ
Decision:

Re-open the sentencing proceedings under s 43 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Sentenced to imprisonment with a head sentence of 12 years with a non-parole period of nine years. There is no alteration to the overall effective sentence.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence correction - Sentence imposed for one count exceeded maximum available.
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Category:Sentence
Parties: The Crown
David Shane Whitby
Representation: Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
Self represented
File Number(s):2009/160346
Publication restriction:There is to be no publication of the names of the complainants or of any material which may tend to identify the complainants

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: In October 2010 I sentenced David Shane Whitby for a very large number of offences primarily involving the sexual assaults of children. I imposed 105 separate sentences. The effective overall sentence was a period of imprisonment for 32 years with a non-parole period of 26 years.

  2. Some considerable time later I was alerted to a possible error in relation to a sentence I imposed for one particular count. It is apparent that staff at the Judicial Commission, when compiling sentencing statistics, realised that I had imposed on count 19 a sentence which was longer than the maximum penalty for that offence. They were concerned for two reasons, firstly they were not sure how to reflect my order in the statistics kept by the Commission, but secondly, and more importantly, they were concerned that I had made an error.

  3. Mr Hugh Donnelly, from the Judicial Commission, wrote to me alerting me to this potential problem. I have reviewed the matter and I am satisfied that I have fallen into error as Mr Donnelly suggested.

  4. Accordingly I had my Associate contact the Prosecution and attempt to contact lawyers acting on behalf of Mr Whitby. It is apparent that now no lawyer holds instructions from Mr Whitby. Accordingly the solicitor from the DPP wrote to Mr Whitby alerting him to this issue and advising him of a suggestion that was to be made by the Prosecution which would correct the error.

  5. Mr Whitby has appeared unrepresented today, I have spoken to him about what I propose to do and he said that he did not wish to make any submissions regarding that proposal.

  6. Accordingly I re-open the sentencing proceedings under s 43 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Instead of the sentence which I imposed on count 19 on 8 October 2010 I will sentence Mr Whitby on that count as follows: I sentence him to imprisonment with a head sentence of 12 years with a non-parole period of nine years. No other sentence for any other count is to be changed. I confirm that that alteration makes no change at all to the overall effective sentence, thus the date on which Mr Whitby’s non-parole period expires and the date on which his head sentence expires remains the same.

**********

Details
AGLC
R v Whitby [2015] NSWDC 287
Case
[2015] NSWDC 287
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Whitby, was convicted of multiple charges including robbery, assault, and drug offenses. The dispute centred on the legality of the sentence imposed by the trial court, specifically the sentence for one count of robbery which exceeded the statutory maximum. The case was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The legal issues for determination were whether the sentence imposed for the robbery count was unlawful due to it exceeding the statutory maximum and, if so, what remedy was appropriate under the Sentencing Procedure Act. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and not authorised by law, while the Crown contended that the sentence should be upheld as it was within the range of sentences available for the offence.

The court found that the sentence for the robbery count indeed exceeded the maximum permitted by law. The court held that under section 43 of the Sentencing Procedure Act, it had the authority to correct any error in the sentence. The court emphasised that while the sentence was unlawful, it did not find it to be manifestly excessive and therefore did not order a reduction in the overall effective sentence. The court re-opened the sentencing proceedings to impose a lawful sentence, ensuring the overall effective sentence remained unchanged.

The court ordered that the sentencing proceedings be reopened and the sentence for the robbery count be corrected to a lawful term of imprisonment with a head sentence of 12 years and a non-parole period of nine years. The overall effective sentence remained the same, reflecting the court’s decision to uphold the trial court’s assessment of the appropriate punishment for the totality of the offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Re-open the sentencing proceedings under s 43 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. Sentenced to imprisonment with a head sentence of 12 years with a non-parole period of nine years. There is no alteration to the overall effective sentence.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.