Regina v Corey Styman - [2005] NSWCCA 129

CITATION:
Regina v Corey Styman [2005] NSWCCA 129

HEARING DATE(S): 23 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

11 April 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
McColl JA at 1; Barr J at 2; Johnson J at 31

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

PARTIES:
Regina, Corey Styman

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/3291

COUNSEL:
E Wilkins
H Cox

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh
Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
03/21/0375

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Delaney DCJ

2004/3291

McCOLL JA
BARR J
JOHNSON J
11 April 2005

REGINA v COREY STYMAN

Judgment

1 McCOLL JA: I agree with Barr J.

2 BARR J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court. On 27 November 2003 the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of being an accessory before the fact of an armed robbery. Delaney DCJ sentenced him to a non-parole period of one year and six months, commencing on 5 May 2003, and a balance of sentence of one year and six months, expiring on 4 May 2006. His Honour directed the release of the applicant on parole on 4 November 2004.

3 On 9 May 2003 the applicant supplied a blood-filled syringe to another person to enable her to rob a twelve-year-old schoolgirl of a mobile telephone while she was on the train travelling home from school. The co-offender sat beside the complainant on the train and asked whether she had a telephone. The complainant said that she did not. The co-offender persisted, taking out the syringe and placing it between her leg and the complainant’s leg. She said that she would give the complainant hepatitis if she did not hand over her mobile telephone. The complainant was terrified and parted with her telephone. The robber left the train at a railway station and the applicant, who had remained nearby, followed her. Later on, police stopped the two of them and spoke to them. In a bum bag carried by the co-offender was the complainant’s mobile telephone. The applicant’s SIM card was found installed in the telephone. The applicant was charged with the robbery and pleaded not guilty. He was committed to the District Court for trial. On the day I have mentioned the Crown, which had charged him in the alternative with being an accessory before the fact of the robbery, indicated for the first time that it was prepared to accept a plea of guilty to that charge in discharge of the indictment. So the matter was disposed of.

4 The first ground of appeal asserts that his Honour erred in increasing the parole period from six months to eighteen months as a result of finding special circumstances. Of course, extension of the parole period of a sentence is not of itself erroneous. The complaint is that in extending the period of parole his Honour imposed a longer overall sentence than he otherwise would have imposed.

5 The applicant was called up for sentence not long after s44

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 Corey Styman

Details

AGLC: Regina v Corey Styman [2005] NSWCCA 129
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 129
Decision Date: 11 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Corey Styman, the Court of Criminal Appeal considered an appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court. Styman pleaded guilty to being an accessory before the fact of an armed robbery. The Court of Criminal Appeal was asked to determine whether the District Court erred in sentencing Styman and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court found that the District Court did not err in extending the parole period based on special circumstances, nor did it increase the overall sentence as a result. The Court concluded that the District Court's decision to extend the parole period was in accordance with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Court's sentence. The final orders of the Court were to grant leave to appeal but dismiss the appeal, maintaining the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders