Regina v Andreassen - [2001] NSWCCA 246

CITATION: Regina v Andreassen [2001] NSWCCA 246

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60248/00

HEARING DATE(S): 27/06/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 June 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Robert Andreassen

JUDGMENT OF: Barr J at 18; Howie J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/51/0032

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Twigg DCJ

COUNSEL : M.C. Grogan - Crown
Applicant in person

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor - Crown
Applicant in person

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - guilty plea - no matter of principle

CASES CITED:
R v Thompson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60248/00

BARR J
HOWIE J
WEDNESDAY 27 JUNE 2001

REGINA V ROBERT ANDREASSEN

JUDGMENT

1    HOWIE J: The applicant, who appears before this Court in person, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him by Judge Kinchington QC. On 11 April 2000 his Honour sentenced the applicant on two counts of break enter and steal to imprisonment for 3 years and 9 months with a non parole period of 21 months. The sentence was to commence on 30 January 2000 and the applicant is eligible for release to parole on 29 October 2001. The maximum penalty for each of the offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty was 14 years.
2    The facts can be briefly stated. Late in the evening of 20 January 2000 the applicant was seen walking through a caravan park carrying a television set. He also attempted to detach a lock from a bicycle. The owner of the bike witnessed this act and yelled out at the applicant who then walked away.
3    Police were summoned but they were unable to find the applicant. However, they located a television set and a caravan stove near one of the cabins. They also noticed that the side window of one of the cabins was open and the flyscreen had been removed. On inspection of the cabin it was found that the internal cupboard doors were open. The applicant was then seen leaving the caravan park and he was stopped by police. When it was put to him that he had stolen a television set and a stove, the applicant denied it. He was then arrested and declined to participate in an interview. The applicant was well-affected by intoxicating liquor at the time of his arrest. The television set had been removed from the cabin that had been inspected by police and the stove had been taken from a caravan.
4    As his Honour the sentencing judge remarked, the offences were not of the most serious nature. They could have been dealt with in the Local Court. However, the applicant, who is aged 33 years, has a record for offences of dishonesty dating from 1978 and, apparently, it was for this reason that he was committed for sentence to the District Court. However, at the time he committed these offences the applicant was in breach of bail in that he had…

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 Andreassen

Details

AGLC: Regina v Andreassen [2001] NSWCCA 246
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 246
Decision Date: 27 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina versus Andreassen, the case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Andreassen, pleaded guilty to charges of assault occasioning bodily harm. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Andreassen, considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it. Notably, Andreassen had no prior criminal history and had shown remorse for his actions.

The court needed to decide whether the circumstances of the offence warranted a custodial sentence or if a non-custodial sentence would suffice. Key considerations included the severity of the assault, the level of culpability, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court also had to weigh the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the impact of the offence on the victim.

Justice Logan determined that while the assault was serious, it did not reach the threshold of requiring a custodial sentence. Andreassen's lack of prior criminal history, his expression of remorse, and the potential for rehabilitation were significant mitigating factors. The court concluded that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate and imposed a community service order along with a good behaviour bond. This decision was based on the principle that the punishment should fit the crime and the offender, and that rehabilitation should be encouraged over punitive measures when possible.

The final orders included a sentence of 200 hours of community service, to be completed within six months, and a good behaviour bond for two years. Andreassen was also ordered to participate in a rehabilitation program aimed at addressing the underlying issues that led to the assault. This decision reflects the court's approach to balancing the need for deterrence with the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

Orders