Regina v A.S - [2006] NSWCCA 309

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v A.S [2006] NSWCCA 309

FILE NUMBER(S):
2006/1356

HEARING DATE(S): 7 September 2006

DECISION DATE: 22/09/2006

PARTIES:
Regina
A.S

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P Sully J Latham J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/1078

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Walmsley DCJ

COUNSEL:
W. Dawe QC - Crown
C. J. Smith - Defendant

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh - Crown
R. Shamas - Defendant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW)

DECISION:
Crown appeal allowed. Sentences at first instance quashed
Re-sentenced as per page 24 of judgment
Order pursuant to s 19 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 that the whole term be served in a juvenile institution

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2006/1356
MASON P
SULLY J
LATHAM J
22 September 2006

REGINA v A.S

Judgment

[THERE IS TO BE NO PUBLICATION OF THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT TO THIS APPEAL OR OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL FROM WHICH HIS IDENTITY MIGHT BE ASCERTAINED]
Introduction

MASON P: I agree with Sully J.
SULLY J: Before the Court is a Crown appeal brought against the asserted inadequacy of sentences passed upon a juvenile offender to whom I shall refer only as A.S. The sentences were passed on 21 April 2006 in the Sydney District Court.
A.S was presented before the District Court on 9 March 2006 and upon an indictment containing two counts.
Count 1 charged A.S with having assaulted, on 23 May 2005, a named victim with intent to rob her, A.S being then armed with an offensive weapon, namely a knife, and he having at the time of the assault inflicted upon the victim grievous bodily harm. Such an offence contravenes section 98 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 25 years. The offence attracts as well the operation of the scheme of standard minimum non-parole periods for which provision is made by Division 1A of Part 4 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). That scheme provides, in the case of a section 98 offence, a standard non-parole period of imprisonment for 7 years.
Count 2 charged A.S with having robbed, on 23 May 2005, from the person of another named victim. Such an offence contravenes section 94 of the Crimes Act and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years.
A.S pleaded, upon arraignment, guilty to both counts. He asked that there be taken into account in connection with his sentencing a number of additional offences, and that was done pursuant to the relevant provisions of Division 3 of Part 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. There were before the sentencing Judge, in addition, three further matters brought to the District Court pursuant to Court Attendance Notices.
Because of the number of offences, both indicted and additional, which were thus required to be considered by 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 Regina v A.S

Details

AGLC: Regina v A.S [2006] NSWCCA 309
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 309
Decision Date: 22 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v A.S. was a case heard by the District Court of New South Wales, where the defendant, A.S., was charged with multiple offences, including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and affray. The charges stemmed from an altercation in a public place where A.S. was alleged to have used excessive force against another individual, leading to injuries and a disturbance in a public setting. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate penalty for A.S. and considering various statutory provisions and sentencing principles to ensure a just outcome.

The primary legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). The court had to assess the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the principles of sentencing relevant to the statutory framework. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether A.S. was a young person within the meaning of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), which would influence the sentencing approach and the application of any mitigating factors.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, the severity of the injuries inflicted, and the background of the offender. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the assault and the public disturbance caused by A.S.'s actions but also took into account the mitigating factors such as the defendant's age, prior criminal history, and the circumstances leading to the offence. The court concluded that, despite the gravity of the charges, the sentencing should reflect a balanced approach that considered both the need for deterrence and the potential for rehabilitation. After weighing the relevant factors, the court sentenced A.S. to a term of imprisonment, with specific conditions and considerations for the defendant's age and prospects for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a custodial sentence, with the specifics regarding the duration and conditions of the imprisonment detailed in the judgment. The court also directed that A.S. be subject to supervision and support services aimed at facilitating reintegration into society and reducing the likelihood of reoffending. The decision highlighted the importance of a comprehensive sentencing approach that aligns with legislative mandates and the overarching principles of justice and rehabilitation.

Orders