Regina v Baxter - [2005] NSWCCA 234

CITATION:
Regina v Baxter [2005] NSWCCA 234

HEARING DATE(S): 28/06/05

JUDGMENT DATE:

28 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J at 1; Hoeben J at 2; Hall J

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
Appeal against sentence - discount for plea of guilty - matters of aggravation under s21A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
R v Drew [2005] NSWCCA 384
R v Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225

PARTIES:
Crown - Respondent
Shane Raoul Baxter - Applicant

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/522

COUNSEL:
A Francis - Applicant
G Rowling - Crown

SOLICITORS:
SE O'Connor - Solicitor for Legal Aid
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
04/41/0042; 04/41/0045

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Phelan DCJ

2005/522

GROVE J
HOEBEN J
HALL J
Tuesday, 28 June, 2005

REGINA v Shane Raoul BAXTER

Judgment

1 HOEBEN J:

Offences and sentence
On 26 August 2004 the applicant was sentenced as follows by Phelan DCJ. The offences are set out in the order in which they were dealt with by his Honour.
(1) 13 August 2001 – break enter and steal contrary to s112(1) Crimes Act 1900 – maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment

(2) 16 August 2001 – break enter and steal contrary to s112(1) of Crimes Act 1900 – maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment.

(3) 23 August 2001 – break enter and steal contrary to s112(1) of Crimes Act 1900 – maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment.

(4) 13-14 October 2003 – break enter and steal contrary to s112(1) of Crimes Act 1900 – maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment.

Crimes Act

2 In relation to those matters his Honour imposed a fixed term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months commencing 31 October 2003 and expiring 30 April 2006. The applicant had been in custody since 31 October 2003.

Crimes Act

3 There were three matters dealt with by way of Form 1:

4 In relation to the aggravated break enter and steal offence, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years commencing 1 May 2006 and expiring on 30 April 2010 with a non-parole period of 2 years expiring on 30 April 2008.

5 The effect of the sentences was a total term of imprisonment of 6½ years commencing on 31 October 2003 and expiring on 30 April 2010 with a non-parole period of 4½ years expiring on 30 April 2008.

Background…

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 Baxter

Details

AGLC: Regina v Baxter [2005] NSWCCA 234
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 234
Decision Date: 28 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the appellant, Baxter, who had been convicted and sentenced for a criminal offence. Baxter appealed against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had not given sufficient weight to the discount for his plea of guilty. The case was heard in the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, the highest court for criminal matters in New South Wales. The appeal centred on the application of the sentencing principles under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and the appropriate weight to be given to various factors, including the discount for a plea of guilty and matters of aggravation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had correctly applied the sentencing principles in the Act, particularly in relation to the discount for a plea of guilty and the consideration of aggravating factors. The appellant's counsel argued that the trial judge had failed to appropriately balance these factors, resulting in an unduly harsh sentence. The prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered the principles of sentencing, including the need to ensure uniformity and consistency in sentencing outcomes, and the importance of recognising the benefits of a plea of guilty. The court noted that while a discount for a plea of guilty should be considered, it is not a fixed or automatic reduction. The court also examined the matters of aggravation relied upon by the prosecution, including the impact on the victim and the seriousness of the offence. Ultimately, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the discount for the plea of guilty and the aggravating factors, and had imposed a sentence that was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offence committed.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the benefits of a plea of guilty and the need to appropriately address the aggravating features of the offence. The court also highlighted the need for careful consideration of the principles of sentencing to ensure just outcomes in individual cases.

Orders