Legal Research
Cases
R v Wicks

R v Wicks

Case [2005] NSWCCA 213 7 June 2005

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Wicks [2005] NSWCCA 213

FILE NUMBER(S):
2005/277

HEARING DATE(S): 07/06/05

JUDGMENT DATE: 07/06/2005

PARTIES:
REGINA v Jade Ebony WICKS

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J James J Howie J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): District Court Armidale 04/51/0177

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Coorey DCJ

COUNSEL:
G Rowling - Crown
C Craigie SC - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
P Bugden - Respondent

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - Crown appeal - offence of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon - whether total sentence and non-parole period were manifestly inadequate - mental illness of chronic schizophrenia

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Criminal Appeal Act
Mental Health Act

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

277/05
STUDDERT J
JAMES J
HOWIE J
TUESDAY 7 JUNE 2005

REGINA v JaDE EBONY WICKS

Judgment

STUDDERT J: The Court is in a position to deliver judgment immediately and I will ask Justice James to deliver judgment.
JAMES J: This is an appeal by the Crown pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act against a sentence imposed on the respondent Jade Ebony Wicks in the District Court at Armidale on 4 February 2005 by his Honour Judge Coorey. For an offence of robbery whilst armed with an offensive weapon committed on 6 May 2004, to which the respondent had pleaded guilty, Judge Coorey imposed a sentence of imprisonment totalling three years with a non parole period of eight months twenty eight days commencing on 6 May 2004 and expiring on 3 February 2005, that is on the day before his Honour passed sentence, and a balance of the term from 4 February 2005 to 5 May 2007.
The respondent had been arrested on 6 May 2004 soon after committing the offence and had remained in custody referable to this offence from 6 May 2004 to the date on which she was sentenced.
On 4 February 2005 his Honour made a parole order directing that the respondent be immediately released from custody. His Honour imposed as conditions of the parole order that the respondent report to the Probation and Parole Service at Tamworth, that she accept the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service and that she undergo continuing psychiatric counselling and medication as advised by her medical practitioners and particularly a psychiatrist Dr Parmegiani.
The facts of the offence and of events immediately following commission of the offence were stated by the sentencing judge in his remarks on sentence in a way which closely followed a facts sheet admitted without objection in the proceedings on sentence and which has not been the subject of any criticism on the hearing of this appeal. His Honour said:
“The prisoner, on 6 May 2004 at around 2.45pm, walked to a store and threatened the victim with a knife and demanded money from the cash register. The prisoner grabbed the wrist of the victim, causing…

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 Wicks

Details

AGLC: R v Wicks [2005] NSWCCA 213
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 213
Decision Date: 7 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wicks involved the appellant who was convicted of the offence of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon. The Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge, contending that the total sentence and non-parole period were manifestly inadequate. The appellant had a history of mental illness, specifically chronic schizophrenia, which was a significant factor in the trial judge's consideration of an appropriate sentence.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for robbery, the role of mental illness in the formulation of sentence, and the appropriate punishment for the gravity of the crime committed. The court also needed to determine if the trial judge had appropriately balanced the appellant's mental health issues against the need to protect the community and the culpability of the offence.

The court found that the trial judge had given insufficient weight to the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect the community. The trial judge had placed undue emphasis on the appellant's mental illness, which led to an underestimation of the risk posed by the appellant. The court concluded that the total sentence and non-parole period were manifestly inadequate, and the appeal was allowed. The matter was remitted to the sentencing judge for re-sentencing. The court emphasised that the appellant's mental illness was a mitigating factor but did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for community protection.

Orders