Legal Research
Cases
R v Young

R v Young

Case [2003] NSWCCA 276 1 October 2003

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: R v Young [2003] NSWCCA 276

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 15 September 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 October 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1; Greg James J at 16; Smart AJ at 17

DECISION: See par 15

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: - Sentence - robbery, alternative stealing from the person - plea of guilty to alternative charge - whether judge maintained distinction between robbery and stealing from the person - failure of judge to refer to plea of guilty - factors on re-sentence

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

CASES CITED: R v Hua [2002] NSWCCA 384
R v Delk (1999) 46 NSWLR 340
R v Kerr-Bell (CCA unreported 13 February 1991)
R v McCarroll [1999] NSWCCA 237
R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117
R v Crombie [1999] NSWCCA 297
R v Simpson(2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Cardoso [2003] NSWCCA 15

PARTIES :
Regina (respondent)
Jeremy Nathan Young (applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60260/03

COUNSEL: A Francis (applicant)
D Frearson (respondent)

SOLICITORS: B Sandland (applicant)
C K Smith (respondent)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/61/1079

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Finnane DCJ

IN THE COURT OF

60260/03
HIDDEN J
GREG JAMES J
SMART AJ

WEDNESDAY 1 OCTOBER 2003

Regina v Jeremy Nathan Young

JUDGMENT

1 HIDDEN J: The applicant, Jeremy Nathan Young, was arraigned in the District Court at Broken Hill upon an indictment charging him with robbery and, in the alternative, stealing from the person. His plea of guilty to that alternative charge was accepted by the Crown prosecutor in satisfaction of the indictment. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four years, to date from his arrest on 22 July 2002, with a non-parole period of eighteen months. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence.

Facts

2 In the light of one of the matters argued in the application, it is best to set out the sentencing judge’s summary of the facts in his remarks:

The offender comes before me for the offence of stealing a mobile phone and a sum of money from a young man called Mason Chapman who was at the time 13 years old. Mason and three of his friends, Thomas Taylor, Gareth Jones and Matthew Adams were all camping out near the Broken Hill Speedway and were sitting round a camp fire and looking forward to spending a night in the bush when the offender and a friend of his came into the camp site. The offender in particular acted from the beginning in a rather irrational fashion. He sat down without any real invitation to do so and threw a knife on the ground saying, “I thought there was a group of older people, I guess I won’t have to use this.” This caused the four boys to become quite scared.

The offender and his friend were drinking beer and the offender snapped a branch from a tree and started smashing it on the ground and telling them, the boys, he was going to attack…

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 Young

Details

AGLC: R v Young [2003] NSWCCA 276
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 276
Decision Date: 1 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the defendant, Young, who was found guilty of robbing a person of a sum of money. Young had entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to the alternative charge of stealing from the person, rather than the more serious offence of robbery. The issue before the court was whether the trial judge had properly maintained the distinction between robbery and stealing from the person during sentencing and whether the judge had appropriately considered the plea of guilty. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the plea and the distinctions between the charges.

The court examined the trial judge's approach to sentencing, noting that while the judge had acknowledged the plea, there was no explicit reference to the fact that Young had pleaded guilty to the lesser offence. The court further considered whether the judge had maintained the distinction between the two charges and whether this distinction was appropriately reflected in the sentence imposed. The court found that the trial judge had failed to adequately address the plea and the distinctions between the charges, which could have influenced the sentence. Consequently, the court concluded that the sentence was inappropriate and ordered a re-sentencing hearing.

The court emphasised that the trial judge should have explicitly recognised the plea of guilty and the distinctions between robbery and stealing from the person. The court held that the failure to do so was a significant error that warranted a re-sentencing hearing. In reaching this decision, the court considered the principles of sentencing and the importance of appropriately reflecting the plea and the distinctions between the charges. The court noted that the sentence imposed was too severe given the plea and the lesser charge to which Young had admitted.

The court ordered a re-sentencing hearing to allow the trial judge to properly consider the plea of guilty and the distinctions between the charges. The court instructed the trial judge to explicitly address these factors and to ensure that the sentence imposed was appropriate and reflected the plea and the lesser charge. The final orders included a direction for the trial judge to re-assess the sentence, taking into account the plea of guilty and the distinctions between the charges, and to impose a new sentence that appropriately reflected these considerations.

Orders