Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Duncombe

Regina v Duncombe

Case [2001] NSWCCA 483 29 November 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v. DUNCOMBE [2001] NSWCCA 483

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No. 60651 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 27 November 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 November 2001

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
DUNCOMBE, Gordon Andrew

JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Dowd J at 2; Greg James J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/71/0019

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Patten, DCJ.

COUNSEL : Crown: R.A. Hulme
Resp: A.M. Webb

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

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence - Crown appeal - principles applicable - break enter and steal offences - application of guideline judgment in Ponfield - assault police - inadequate sentences - disproportionately short non-parole period.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
Everett (1994) 181 CLR 295
Dinsdale (2000) 74 ALJR 1538
Wong & Leung [2001] HCA 64
Lowe [1984] 12 A. Crim. R. 408
Readman (1990) 47 A. Cirm. R. 181
Ponfield (1999) 48 NSWLR 327
Fernando (1992) 76 A. Crim. R. 58
Thomson & Houlten (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Morgan (1993) 70 A. Crim. R. 368
Pont [2000] NSWCCA 419
Allpass (1994) 72 A. Crim. R. 561
Kalache (2000) 111 A. Crim. R. 152
Warfield (1994) 34 NSWLR 200
Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
Landsell (CCA, unreported 23.5.96)
Pearce (1998) 103 A. Crim. R. 372
Harris [2001] NSWCCA 322

DECISION: The appeal be upheld. The sentence imposed in the District Court be quashed and the responent re-sentenced as follows. On the count of assaulting a police officer, to imprisonment for a fixed term of 12 months to commence on 2 November 2000 to expire on 1 November 2001. On the count of break enter and steal, and taking into account the matters on the Form 1, to imprisonment for a term of five years to date from 2 Novmeber 2001 and to expire on 1 November 2006, a total sentence of six years imprisonment. On the latter sentence, impose a non-parole period of three years to date from 2 November 2001. The respondent would be eligible for release on parole at the end of the non-parole period but that parole should be subject to the supervision of the Probation & Parole Service. Order that the report of Ms. Johnson be sent to the Department of Corrective Services, as proposed. The first possible release date would be 2 November 2004.

No. 60651 of 2001

SHELLER, JA.
DOWD, J.
GREG JAMES, J.

THURSDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2001

REGINA v. GORDON ANDREW DUNCOMBE

JUDGMENT

1 SHELLER, JA: I agree with Greg James, J.

2 DOWD, J: I agree with Greg James, J.

3 GREG JAMES, J: This is an appeal by the New South Wales Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s.5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against sentences pronounced on the respondent in the District Court at Albury on 6 September 2001 by Patten DCJ.

4 The respondent, Gordon Andrew Duncombe was sentenced on two counts,…

Details

AGLC: Regina v Duncombe [2001] NSWCCA 483
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 483
Decision Date: 29 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Duncombe, the appellant was convicted of various offences including breaking and entering, stealing, and assault. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the Crown appealed against the sentences imposed by the lower court. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were inadequate, particularly in relation to the break and enter and steal offences, and if the non-parole period was disproportionately short.

The appeal hinged on the principles established in the guideline judgment of Ponfield, which provides a framework for sentencing in cases involving break and enter and steal offences. The court examined whether the trial judge had appropriately considered the seriousness of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. The Crown argued that the sentences were too lenient, particularly given the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences. The court considered the appellant's criminal history and the specific circumstances of the assault on police officers during the commission of the crimes.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the seriousness of the offences and the need for general and specific deterrence. The sentences imposed were considered to be disproportionately short, particularly the non-parole period, which did not reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. The court held that the sentences were inadequate and ordered a re-sentencing hearing to ensure that appropriate weight was given to the factors required by the guideline judgment in Ponfield. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and consistency in sentencing to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders