Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Ellis; Regina v Carr

Regina v Ellis; Regina v Carr

Link copied

Case Copied 17 May 2002 23 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Regina v Ellis; Regina v Carr [2002] NSWCCA 211

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60491/01 and 60539/01

HEARING DATE(S): 17/05/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 May 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Mark Richard Ellis; Regina v Aaron James Carr

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1,59; Smart AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/31/0099

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Cooper DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) H L A Cox (Ellis)
N Mikhaiel (Carr)
(C) L M B Lamprati

SOLICITORS: (A) D J Humphreys (Ellis)
Jack Rigg (Carr)
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - Relevance of sentences passed on juvenile co-offenders

LEGISLATION CITED: Nil

CASES CITED:
R v Colgan (1999) NSWCCA 292
R v Govinden (1999) 106 A Crim R 314
R v Boney [2001] NSWCCA 432
R v Thompson, R v Houlton [2000] 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: See para 58

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

HIDDEN J

SMART AJ

Friday 17 May 2002

REGINA v MARK RICHARD ELLIS

REGINA v AARON JAMES CARR

JUDGMENT

1. HIDDEN J: I will ask Smart AJ to deliver the first judgment.

2. SMART AJ: Mark Richard Ellis and Aaron James Carr each seek leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed on them in the District Court on 25 July 2001.

3. Mr Ellis was sentenced to imprisonment for four years with a non parole period of two years and three months on a charge of robbery using corporal violence and a concurrent sentence of a fixed term of six months for receiving. This related to a watch taken in the robbery. Mr Ellis was born on 3 June 1980 and was thus aged 20 at the time of the offences.

4. Mr Carr was sentenced to imprisonment for four years with a non parole period of three years on a charge of robbery in company. Mr Carr was born on 9 April 1981 and was thus aged 19 at the time of the offences.

5. Both Messrs Ellis and Carr entered pleas of guilty in the Local Court and were committed for sentence to the District Court.

6. About 2.30am on 18 February 2001 Messrs Ellis and Carr, Justin Bennis and Justin Holmes, were in a car being driven by Lauren Waters from Broadmeadow along Tudor Street, Hamilton. They had been together for some hours. Mark Crowfoot, Steven Telford and Gregory Rumbel (the victims) were walking along Tudor Street, Hamilton towards Beaumont Street, Hamilton. The vehicle containing Messrs Ellis, Carr, Bennis and Holmes stopped near where the victims were walking. Messrs Ellis, Carr, Bennis and Holmes alighted from the car and approached the victims. A knife was produced. On seeing the knife Mr Rumbel ran down a nearby alleyway. Messrs Carr and Bennis chased Mr Rumbel and stopped him. Mr Rumbel was threatened with a knife by one of them and his money was demanded. There is some dispute as to who actually produced the knife, hence the charge of robbery in company. The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Ellis; Regina v Carr and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWCCA 211
Decision Date: 17 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Ellis and Regina v Carr, the defendants were convicted of armed robbery and the court was tasked with determining their respective sentences. The case presented the issue of whether the sentences imposed on the co-offenders, particularly those who were juveniles at the time of the offence, should be taken into account when sentencing the defendants. The High Court of Australia was asked to consider the relevance of sentences passed on juvenile co-offenders in the sentencing of the adult defendants.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was whether the sentencing court should consider the sentences imposed on co-offenders, particularly juveniles, when determining the appropriate punishment for the adult offenders. This question required the court to balance the principles of individual justice with the need to ensure that sentences reflect the seriousness of the crime and the culpability of the offender. The court also needed to consider the impact of the sentences on the juvenile co-offenders and the broader implications for the criminal justice system.

The court held that the sentences imposed on juvenile co-offenders could be relevant in the sentencing of adult offenders, provided that the court carefully considers the individual circumstances of each case. The judges emphasised that while the primary focus should be on the culpability and individual circumstances of the adult offender, the sentences of co-offenders, including juveniles, could provide context and assist in determining an appropriate sentence. The court stressed the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate and reflect the unique circumstances of each case, including the role and culpability of each offender. The High Court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the sentences of the juvenile co-offenders in arriving at the sentences for the adult defendants.

The final orders of the court affirmed the sentences imposed on the adult defendants, recognising that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the individual circumstances of the case with the broader principles of criminal sentencing. The court's decision underscored the importance of a nuanced approach to sentencing that takes into account the full context of the offence and the role of each offender, while also ensuring that sentences are proportionate and just.

Orders