Regina v Field - [2011] NSWCCA 13

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Regina v Field [2011] NSWCCA 13
Hearing dates: 16 December 2010
Decision date: 16 February 2011
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at 1
Hall J at 2
Garling J at 3
Decision:
(1) Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against sentence - Appeal by Crown - Robbery armed with an offensive weapon - Whether the sentencing judge was required to determine "objective seriousness" for an offence for which there is no standard non-parole period - Whether there was any failure to take into account personal deterrence - Whether there was any error in the finding of special circumstances - Concession made by the Crown at sentencing hearing - Whether sentence was manifestly inadequate
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001
Crimes Act (Sentencing Procedure) Act) 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Cases Cited: Georgopolous v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 246
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45 (8 December 2010)
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v JW [2010] NSWCCA 49
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v Thomson (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Sirell v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 286
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Crown (Applicant)
Troy Field (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
V. Lydiard (Crown)
B. Rigg (Respondent)
Solicitors
Department of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid Commission NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s): CCA 2010/034725
Decision under appeal

Citation:

R v Troy Field

Date of Decision:

2010-09-03 00:00:00

Before:

Neilson DCJ

File Number(s):

2010/34725

Judgment

MCCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Garling J.

HALL J: I agree with Garling J.

GARLING J: The Crown appeals pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 in respect of a sentence imposed by Neilson DCJ on 3 September 2010.

The respondent, Mr Troy Field, pleaded guilty to one count of a robbery armed with an offensive weapon, contrary to s 97(1) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The offences related to an incident on 22 January 2010, in which Mr Field, armed with a shotgun, robbed the victim FS at her home of a mobile phone and a packet of cigarettes.

The maximum penalty for the offence is 20 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period. A guideline judgment for an offence against s 97(1) of the Crimes Act has been delivered: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346.

His Honour imposed a sentence of 3 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years, to commence from 8 February 2010, the date upon which Mr Field was arrested and refused bail.

Facts

At the sentencing proceedings a short statement of agreed facts was tendered to Neilson DCJ. His Honour essentially repeated those facts in his remarks on sentence, and made some additional factual findings. They are together summarised below.

On Friday, 22 January 2010, Mr Field and Mr Paul Mafi (who is still at large), attended FS's address at Rosemeadow in order to…

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 Field

Details

AGLC: Regina v Field [2011] NSWCCA 13
Case: [2011] NSWCCA 13
Decision Date: 16 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Crown against the sentence handed down to the appellant for an offence of robbery armed with an offensive weapon. The appellant had pleaded guilty to the offence, which involved the use of a knife during the commission of the robbery. The sentence imposed was a term of imprisonment of six years with a non-parole period of three years. The Crown argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and sought a higher penalty for the appellant's crime. The appeal raised questions regarding the objective seriousness of the offence, the consideration of personal deterrence, and the identification of special circumstances in the sentencing process.

The court was required to consider whether the sentencing judge was obligated to determine the objective seriousness of the offence in the absence of a standard non-parole period. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the judge had failed to take into account personal deterrence and whether there was any error in the identification of special circumstances that could have warranted a higher sentence. The Crown also argued that the concession made by the defence at the sentencing hearing regarding the objective seriousness of the offence did not absolve the judge of the responsibility to make an independent assessment.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in not independently determining the objective seriousness of the offence. The court held that the judge should have considered the appellant's criminal history, the nature of the weapon used, and the impact on the victim. Furthermore, the court determined that there was a failure to adequately consider personal deterrence and that the identification of special circumstances was flawed. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing judge for reconsideration of the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of a comprehensive and independent assessment of the factors relevant to sentencing in such serious criminal cases.

Orders