Regina v Drollett - [2002] NSWCCA 13

CITATION: Regina v Drollett [2002] NSWCCA 13

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60570/01

HEARING DATE(S): 5 December 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Adam Drollett

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Sully J at 2; Levine J at 28

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/3124

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibb DCJ

COUNSEL : E. Wilkins - Crown
R. Burgess - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
D. J. Humphreys - Respondent

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act (1900) NSW
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295 at 300
Veen v The Queen [No. 2] [1988] 164 CLR 465 at 477

DECISION: Crown appeal upheld; each of the sentences passed upon the respondent in the District Court quashed; and in lieu thereof the respondent sentenced to imprisonment - see pages 25 - 27 of judgment.

IN THE SUPREME COURTOF NEW SOUTH WALES

60570/01

MASON P
SULLY J
LEVINE J

Thursday 14 February 2002

REGINA v ADAM DROLLETT

JUDGMENT

1 MASON P: I agree with Sully J.

2 SULLY J: This is a Crown appeal against sentence. The notice of appeal is dated 23 August 2001. The notice lists ten sentences passed upon the respondent, Mr. Drollett, on 26 July 2001. The sentences were passed by her Honour Judge Gibb sitting in the District Court at Campbelltown. The only ground stated in the notice is: “that the said sentence is manifestly inadequate”. That is not quite the Crown case. The Crown appeal, as argued before this Court, does not challenge, individual sentence by individual sentence, the adequacy of the sentences passed by her Honour upon the respondent. The Crown appeal, as ultimately framed at the hearing, is directed, rather, to the fact that her Honour provided, by her dating of each individual sentence, that all ten of the sentences passed upon the respondent should be served concurrently. The end result of that approach was to expose the respondent to what her Honour described as a “maximum total period of imprisonment” of five years six months; with an effective non-parole period of four years one month fifteen days. The sole basis of the Crown appeal is that such an end result cannot be justified by a correct application to the respondent’s case of the sentencing principle that is conventionally described as the principle of totality.

3 On 26 July 2001 Mr. Drollett was presented before her Honour, and was arraigned formally upon an indictment containing ten counts. Mr. Drollett had previously pleaded guilty, as it would seem, in the Local Court; and at the earliest practical opportunity.

4 The indictment upon which Mr. Drollett was thus presented contained eleven counts. The Crown did not proceed, in the ultimate event, on Count 3. Of the remaining ten counts, Count 1 charged the respondent with robbery while armed with a dangerous weapon, namely a Chinese made SKK semi-automatic military-style assault rifle. Any…

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 Drollett

Details

AGLC: Regina v Drollett [2002] NSWCCA 13
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 13
Decision Date: 14 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This is a Crown appeal against sentence. The appeal is brought by the Crown against sentences passed upon the respondent, Mr. Drollett, in the District Court. The appeal is based on the ground that the sentences passed were manifestly inadequate. The Court was required to determine whether the sentences passed were manifestly inadequate and whether the Court should intervene in the sentencing. The Court found that the sentences passed were manifestly inadequate and upheld the Crown appeal. The Court quashed the sentences passed upon the respondent in the District Court and in lieu thereof, the respondent was sentenced to imprisonment. The Court also recommended that the Commissioner for Corrective Services take certain steps to ensure the respondent's proper rehabilitation.

Orders