Regina v Cosier - [2001] NSWCCA 513

CITATION: REGINA v. COSIER [2001] NSWCCA 513

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60238 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 10 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 December 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
COSIER, Ian

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1; Whealy J at 38

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/21/1154

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Bellear, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: L.M.B. Lamprati
App: H. Dhanji

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: Bell & Partners

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - appeal - sentence - armed robberies - principles in R. v. Henry - discount for plea - disclosure of other crimes - sentences not manifestly inadequate.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
Henry & Ors (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Cartwrigth (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
Rushby (1977) 1 NSWLR 594
Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pont [2000] NSWCCA 419
House (1936) 55 CLR 299
Lemene [2001] NSWCCA 5
Jolley [2000] NSWCCA 69
Fleming [1999] NSWCCA 142
Lowe (1984) 154 CLR 606

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

No. 60238 of 2001

GREG JAMES, J.
WHEALY, J.

MONDAY 10 DECEMBER 2001

REGINA v. IAN PATRICK COSIER

JUDGMENT

1 GREG JAMES, J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court of New South Wales for various offences, four charged on indictment and some eight offences, included in a Form 1 and taken into consideration by the trial judge.

2 The offences charged on the indictment included conspiracy to commit robbery when armed with a dangerous weapon, a common law misdemeanour. The substantive offence of armed robbery, the object of the conspiracy, is an offence punishable by imprisonment for 25 years. There were, in addition, two counts for offences of robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon. Those are offences under s.97(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 and are punishable by a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.

3 In addition to those three counts, there was a fourth count of harbour escapee, an offence punishable by a maximum of three years imprisonment. The offences on the Form 1 were six offences of robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon, and two of larceny of a motor vehicle.

4 The learned trial judge imposed sentences on counts one and two for a fixed term of six years, commencing on 23 April 2001, with a non-parole period of three years and six months, expiring on 22 October 2004. On count three, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, his Honour imposed a sentence of seven years and six months, commencing on 23 April 2003, and expiring on 22 October 2010, with a non-parole period of four years and six months, expiring on 22 October 2007. On count four, his Honour passed a sentence of imprisonment for a fixed term of seventeen months, commencing on 29 May 2000 and expiring on 28 October 2001.

5 This complex of sentencing produced an overall sentence, as expressed in…

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 Cosier

Details

AGLC: Regina v Cosier [2001] NSWCCA 513
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 513
Decision Date: 10 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Cosier, the appellant was convicted of participating in three armed robberies. He appealed his sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The Crown, in turn, sought a harsher penalty, claiming the judge had failed to consider the severity of the crimes. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences were appropriate and if the judge had correctly applied the principles of discounting for a plea and disclosing other crimes.

The legal issues revolved around the principles established in R v Henry, which dictate the approach to sentencing for multiple offences. The appellant argued that the sentences were too lenient, while the Crown believed the sentences did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the judge had correctly applied the discount for the appellant's plea and whether the disclosure of other crimes was adequately considered.

The court found that the sentences were not manifestly inadequate, as the judge had taken into account the principles set out in R v Henry. The court held that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances and the discount for the appellant's plea. The disclosure of other crimes was also considered, but the court determined that it did not warrant a harsher sentence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court affirmed the original sentences imposed by the lower court, with no adjustments made. The court upheld the principle that the sentences were not manifestly inadequate, and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.

Orders