Regina v Baglee - [1999] NSWCCA 223

CITATION: Regina v Baglee [1999] NSWCCA 223

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 6058/99

HEARING DATE(S): 4 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 August 1999

PARTIES :

Regina v Anthony BAGLEE

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J; Smart AJ

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/31/0425
98/31/0426

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Mitchelmore DCJ

COUNSEL: P G Berman for the Crown

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor for the Crown
Applicant in person

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law; sentence for break enter and steal;; not excessive in circumstances.

ACTS CITED: -Nil-

CASES CITED:
-Nil-

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted.; Dates of sentence varied.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60058/99

LEVINE J
SMART AJ

WEDNESDAY 4 AUGUST 1999

REGINA v Anthony BAGLEE

JUDGMENT

1 SMART AJ : Anthony Steven Baglee seeks leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence comprising a minimum term of two years six months and an additional term of eighteen months on a count of break, enter and steal. He was also sentenced at the same time to fixed terms of twelve months on three counts of break, enter and steal and seven counts of receiving. The judge selected the count on which he imposed the greatest sentence because it was a charge of break, enter and steal, and had been committed while the applicant was on bail.
2 There was a reasonable amount of property involved and the applicant was seen at the property and then running through neighbouring yards with a bag belonging to the owners of the property where the offence occurred. There was another man involved, namely the applicant's brother. The applicant, amongst other things, acted as the lookout.
3 The judge also took into account a number of other offences, namely obtain benefit by deception (obtained one hundred and fifty dollars cash after pawning stolen property), furnish false particulars to a pawnbroker, goods in custody (numerous items), three serious driving offences (drive whilst disqualified, drive unregistered vehicle, drive uninsured vehicle), and possess prohibited drug (cannabis) when dealing with one of the receiving counts.
4 They cannot be left out of account when considering the totality of the criminality. The applicant has made it clear that he is only appealing on the charge on which the major sentence was imposed, and he submits that that should be dealt with separately and that the sentences imposed on the other matters were separate.
5 All of the break, enter and steal offences involve breaking into the houses or flat of the occupants while they were out and taking some of their goods. In some instances flyscreens had been removed and windows opened. In one instance the occupant's home was ransacked and clothes from drawers strewn across the floor of the main bedroom. The front door of the flat was kicked in.

6 On 19 July 1998 at Windale, police located a large amount of stolen property in the applicant's vehicle. That property came from homes in the Newcastle area which had been broken into. The receiving counts relate to 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 Baglee

Details

AGLC: Regina v Baglee [1999] NSWCCA 223
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 223
Decision Date: 4 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Baglee, the defendant stood before the court facing charges related to breaking and entering, as well as theft. The defendant had been caught in the act of entering a commercial premises and stealing goods. The case was heard in the relevant court, which was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant’s crimes. The defendant’s legal team argued that the sentence should be lenient, given the circumstances, while the prosecution sought a more stringent punishment, commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

The court was required to balance several key legal issues. It needed to consider the nature and severity of the crime, the defendant’s criminal history, and any mitigating factors that might influence the sentence. Additionally, the court had to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and served as a deterrent for similar future crimes. The court was also mindful of the overarching principles of justice and rehabilitation in its sentencing decision.

In delivering its judgment, the court examined the circumstances of the crime and the defendant’s background. It found that while the act of breaking and entering and stealing was serious, the specific details of the case warranted a measured approach to sentencing. The court acknowledged the defendant’s lack of a prior criminal record and the apparent lack of malicious intent. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence imposed was not excessive and was appropriate in the given circumstances. This decision aimed to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant was to serve a specified term of imprisonment, followed by a period of probation. This sentence was intended to reflect the seriousness of the crime while also providing the defendant with an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The court’s decision underscored the importance of a balanced and fair approach to sentencing in criminal cases.

Orders