Legal Research
Cases
Raniga v R

Raniga v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 36 11 March 2016

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Raniga v R [2016] NSWCCA 36
Hearing dates: 26 February 2016
Date of orders: 11 March 2016
Decision date: 11 March 2016
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Davies J at [3]
Decision:
Leave to appeal refused.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – possess unauthorised firearm – challenge to assessment of objective seriousness –applicant a member of a criminal organisation – inference that weapon could be used in connection with criminal activities – objective seriousness assessed at upper end of mid-range – no error demonstrated – whether sentence manifestly excessive – use of statistics – use of comparative cases – sentence not manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Atkinson v R [2014] NSWCCA 262
Ayshow v R [2011] NSWCCA 240
Bejanov v R [2013] NSWCCA 207
Dang v R [2014] NSWCCA 47
El Masri v R [2014] NSWCCA 13
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Huynh v R [2008] NSWCCA 216
Kiernan v R [2016] NSWCCA 12
Lowe v R [2015] NSWCCA 46
Mulato v R [2006] NSWCCA 282
Pham v R [2014] NSWCCA 1115
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Farrell [2015] NSWCCA 68
Satuala Nanai v R [2012] NSWCCA 141
Thalari v R [2009] NSWCCA 170; (2009) 75 NSWLR 307
Van Vinh Cao v R [2013] NSWCCA 321
Vandeventer v R [2013] NSWCCA 33
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Tony Raniga (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
W Hunt (Applicant)
N Noman SC (Crown)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/200588
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

23 January 2015

Before:

Wells DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/200588

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ AT CL: I agree with Davies J.
JOHNSON J: I agree with Davies J.
DAVIES J: The Applicant pleaded guilty to one count of possess unauthorised firearm contrary to s 7(1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) on 11 March 2014 at Central Local Court. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment and there is a standard non-parole period of three years. The standard non-parole period for the offence was increased to four years from 21 August 2015.
Three matters were placed on a Form 1 Schedule:

(a) Possess ammunition without holding a licence/permit or authority – the maximum penalty is 50 penalty units ($5,500.00);
(b) Possess or use a prohibited weapon without a permit (two counts) – maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment with a standard non-parole period of three years.

The Applicant was sentenced by her Honour Judge Wells SC in the District Court on 23 January 2015 to a non-parole period of three years commencing 1 July 2013 and expiring 30 June 2016 with a balance of term of one year and six months expiring 31 December 2017.
In the Notice of Appeal the…

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 Raniga v R

Details

AGLC: Raniga v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 36
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 36
Decision Date: 11 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Raniga, appealed against his sentence for possessing an unauthorised firearm, arguing that the assessment of its objective seriousness was flawed. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. Raniga contended that the sentencing judge erred in considering his membership in a criminal organisation as a factor in the weapon's potential use in criminal activities, and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the objective seriousness of the offence. It also considered if the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the use of statistics and comparative cases. The court held that the sentencing judge did not err in considering the applicant's criminal organisation membership, as it was relevant to the potential use of the weapon in criminal activities. The court further found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was appropriately assessed within the mid-range of penalties for the offence.

The court emphasised the importance of considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the characteristics of the offender, and the need for general and specific deterrence when determining the appropriate penalty. The use of statistics and comparative cases was deemed appropriate in assessing the sentence's proportionality. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders