Regina v Anderson - [2002] NSWCCA 485

CITATION: Regina v Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 485

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60425/02

HEARING DATE(S): 21/10/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
16 December 2002

PARTIES :

Crown
Jennifer Eleja Aroha Anderson

JUDGMENT OF: Heydon JA at 1; Hulme J at 2; Hidden J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 02/21/0096

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Tupman DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr P Ingram - Applicant Crown
Mr A P Cook - Respondent

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Applicant Crown
DJ Humphreys - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW: Sentence - Crown appeal - sentences inadequate in their totality - creditable behaviour by respondent in prison since sentence relevant to re-sentence - discretion not to interfere.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act, 1912
Crimes Act, 1900

CASES CITED:
R v Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at paras 162.-5
R v Goundar [2001] NSWCCA 198

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

60425/02

HEYDON JA
HULME J
HIDDEN J
Monday, 16 December, 2002

REGINA v Jennifer Eleja Aroha ANDERSON

Judgment

1 HEYDON JA: But for the incident described in the last three paragraphs of Hidden J’s reasons for judgment, the success of this Crown appeal would have been inevitable. However, that spontaneous incident, reflecting as it does much credit on the respondent as a human being, is an extremely compelling indication that the respondent has begun a process of rehabilitation and has significant prospects of rehabilitation which an increased sentence might damage. Good behaviour in the prisons of this State is something which badly needs to be encouraged, and taking the incident into account in the manner proposed by Hidden J may encourage it. For that reason I agree with the order proposed by Hidden J.

2 HULME J: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Heydon JA and with the order proposed by Hidden J.

3 HIDDEN J: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, pursuant to s 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act, against sentences passed upon the respondent after she pleaded guilty in the District Court to the following charges:

· Aggravated kidnapping (s 86(2) of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment);

· robbery in company (s 97(1) of the Crimes Act, also carrying a maximum of twenty years);

· two charges of (deemed) larceny of a motor vehicle (ss 154A/117 of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum of five years).

4 On the kidnapping charge, the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months. On the charge of robbery in company she was sentenced to a fixed term of twelve months, and on each of the motor vehicle charges to a fixed term of six months. All sentences were to date from 17 February 2002, the date of her arrest. The overall effective sentence, then, was imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months.

Facts

5 The four offences comprised a continuing course of criminal conduct which took place on Sunday,…

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 Anderson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Anderson [2002] NSWCCA 485
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 485
Decision Date: 16 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Anderson involved a criminal appeal brought by the Crown against the sentences imposed on the respondent, Anderson. The dispute centred around the adequacy of the sentences given by the trial judge, with the Crown arguing that the sentences were insufficient in their totality. The appeal was heard in the higher court, which had the authority to review and potentially alter the sentences imposed by the trial court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were inadequate and whether the respondent's creditable behaviour in prison since the original sentencing was a relevant factor in determining a new sentence. The court was required to consider whether the Crown had demonstrated that the sentences were so inadequate as to warrant intervention by the appellate court. Additionally, the court needed to assess the relevance of the respondent's behaviour in prison to the re-sentencing process.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the principle that appellate courts should be cautious in interfering with the sentencing discretion of trial judges. The court noted that the respondent had demonstrated creditable behaviour in prison since the original sentencing, which was a relevant consideration in determining a new sentence. The court concluded that, while the sentences might have been on the lower end of the scale, they were not so inadequate as to warrant interference by the appellate court. The court also acknowledged the respondent's commendable conduct in prison as a mitigating factor. Consequently, the court decided not to alter the sentences imposed by the trial judge.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the sentences imposed by the trial judge, noting the respondent's creditable behaviour in prison since the original sentencing. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, recognising the importance of both the original sentencing and the respondent's subsequent conduct in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders