Regina v Andrews - [2002] NSWCCA 18

CITATION: Regina v Andrews [2002] NSWCCA 18

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60853/00

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 1 February 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
1 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Tracey Marie Andrews

JUDGMENT OF: Ipp AJA at 31; Grove J at 2; Dowd J at 32

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/31/0452

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Shillington DCJ

COUNSEL : P.J.P. Power (Crown)
H.L. Cox (Appellant)

SOLICITORS: S.E. O'Connor (Crown)
D.J. Humphreys (Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES - CONSENT OF CROWN TO TENDER OF INFORMATION SHOWING VALUE OF ASSISTANCE GREATER THAN COULD HAVE BEEN APPRECIATED AT TIME OF SENTENCE - PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES - RESENTENCE APPROPRIATE

CASES CITED:
R v Thomson & Ors [2000] 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: APPEAL ALLOWED; APPELLANT RESENTENCED

60853/00

IPP AJA
GROVE J
DOWD J
Friday 1 February 2002

REGINA v TRACEY MARIE ANDREWS

Judgment

1 IPP AJA: I will ask Grove J to give the first judgment.

2 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of sentence imposed by Shillington DCJ in the Newcastle District Court on 12 December 2000.

3 The applicant had appeared for sentence upon six counts, four of them charging her with being an accessory after the fact to robbery and two counts charging robbery, in each of which the Crown case was that she was a principal in the second degree.

4 The facts of the offences followed a fairly standard pattern. A man called Adam Dudgeon, recently released from prison, came to reside with the applicant, her de facto husband and her children. During this residence it appears that an affair took place between the applicant and the man Dudgeon, and she came to be somewhat influenced by him.

5 A spate of offences occurred, the first on 22 December 1999 and the last on 19 January 2000. The offences followed, as I have said, a general pattern. They were robberies of retail outlets, including chicken stores, bakeries, and pizza parlours, and one attack upon a liquor store.

6 The applicant was involved frequently as the driver of the vehicle which came to the place of the offence. Dudgeon entered the premises to commit the actual offences, often disguising himself with a balaclava.

7 The facts also reveal that on occasions the applicant was actually stopped by police in her vehicle, and gave explanations which were false, but which at the time satisfied police investigators.

8 It can also be remarked that on the occasions of some offences she was accompanied by children, specifically by her ten year old daughter. The applicant received shares of the proceeds, sometimes by way of a distribution of some drugs, which she was at the time using. As I have said, it is not necessary to detail the whole six of the offences.

9 His Honour imposed sentences of fixed terms of twelve months imprisonment on each of the four counts charging that the applicant was an accessory…

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 Andrews

Details

AGLC: Regina v Andrews [2002] NSWCCA 18
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 18
Decision Date: 1 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Andrews came before the Court, where the appellant, Andrews, sought to have his sentence reviewed on the basis that the Crown had consented to the tender of information that demonstrated the value of his assistance to authorities was greater than could have been appreciated at the time of his original sentencing. The nature of the dispute was centred on whether the court should exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence in light of the new information, which highlighted the significance of the appellant's assistance.

The legal issue that the court needed to address was whether the particular circumstances of the case warranted a resentencing. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appellant's substantial assistance to authorities, which was not fully appreciated at the time of the original sentencing, justified a reduction in his sentence. The court considered whether the new information, which showed the extent of the appellant's assistance, constituted a significant change in circumstances that warranted resentencing under the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act.

The court found that the appellant's substantial and genuine assistance to authorities, which was not fully appreciated at the time of the original sentencing, did constitute a significant change in circumstances. The court noted that the Crown's consent to the tender of information that demonstrated the value of the appellant's assistance was a strong indicator of its significance. The court held that, in light of the particular circumstances of the case, including the appellant's early guilty plea and his significant cooperation, a resentencing was appropriate. The court exercised its discretion to reduce the appellant's sentence, reflecting the value of his assistance and the change in circumstances.

The court ordered that the appellant's sentence be reduced from the original term to a new term that reflected the significant change in circumstances. The court emphasised that the resentencing was not a matter of right, but rather a discretionary decision based on the particular facts of the case. The court's decision underscored the importance of recognising and appropriately valuing the assistance provided by defendants to authorities, and the potential impact this can have on sentencing outcomes.

Orders