Regina v Coombes - [2000] NSWCCA 349

CITATION: Regina v Coombes [2000] NSWCCA 349

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60318/99

HEARING DATE(S): Monday, 31 July 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
31 July 2000

PARTIES :

The Crown
Christopher Coombes

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J at 1; Sperling J at 16

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/31/0524

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Nader ADCJ

COUNSEL : A M Blackmore (Crown)
P J D Hamill (Aool)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Ross Hill & Associates (Appl)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Regina v Lowe (1984) 154 CLR 606
Regina v Postiglione (1996) 189 CLR 295

DECISION: See para 15

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60318/99

NEWMAN J
SPERLING J

MONDAY, 31 JULY 2000

REGINA v Christopher COOMBES

JUDGMENT

1 NEWMAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed by Nader ADCJ on 23 April 1999 in the District Court sitting at Newcastle. Before his Honour the applicant had pleaded guilty to a charge of armed robbery contrary to the provisions of s 97(1) of the Crimes Act. The plea had been entered at a very early opportunity, the applicant having pleaded guilty and brought before the Local Court at Maitland and he there adhered to his plea before his Honour.
2    The maximum penalty for such an offence is imprisonment for twenty years. Accordingly, it is a crime which stands high in the criminal calendar.
3    In the event, his Honour sentenced the applicant to a head sentence of six years consisting of a minimum term of three years and six months and an additional term of two years and six months.
4    The applicant, as will be evident from the short facts, carried out the crime in concert with another, one Matthew Archer. Archer also pleaded guilty but by no means entered his plea at an early stage. He was sentenced by another Judge, Coolhan DCJ, on 12 November 1999. He received a head sentence of three years' penal servitude with a minimum term of twelve months.
5 Essentially three grounds of appeal have been advanced on behalf of the applicant. Firstly, that the sentence was excessive and here reliance is placed upon the guidelines set down by this Court in Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346.
6    Secondly, that when one compares the sentence imposed on the co-accused Archer with that imposed upon the applicant, a question of justifiable sense of grievance arises in terms of parity of sentencing.
7    Thirdly, that his Honour did not give a sufficient discount for assistance, his Honour's discount being in the order of 25 per cent.
8    I turn then to the facts of the matter. The offence occurred on 22 August 1998. Archer and the applicant approached the victim of the crime, who was sitting in a park. They demanded that the victim hand over his wallet. A knife was held to the unfortunate victim's throat, Archer keeping his…

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 Coombes

Details

AGLC: Regina v Coombes [2000] NSWCCA 349
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 349
Decision Date: 31 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal heard an application for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed by Nader ADCJ on Christopher Coombes, who had pleaded guilty to armed robbery. The District Court had sentenced Coombes to six years imprisonment with a minimum term of three years and six months. Coombes argued that the sentence was excessive, that there was a parity issue with his co-offender's sentence, and that the sentencing judge did not give a sufficient discount for his assistance. The co-offender, Matthew Archer, had received a significantly lower sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive when compared to the guidelines set in Regina v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 and that there was a justifiable sense of grievance due to the disparity between Coombes' and Archer's sentences. The Court of Criminal Appeal decided to quash the sentence and impose a new head sentence of three and a half years with a non-parole period of two years.

Orders