Regina v Fields - [2005] NSWCCA 37

CITATION:
Regina v Fields [2005] NSWCCA 37

HEARING DATE(S): 16/02/2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

16 February 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Bryson JA at 1; Barr J at 40; Hoeben J at 2

DECISION:
Leave to appeal against sentence granted - appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW: s95(1) Crimes Act 1900 - assault maliciously inflict actual bodily harm with intent to rob - objective seriousness of offence - balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
R v Ceissman [2001] NSWCCA 73
R v Fernando (1994) 76 A Crim R 58 at 62-3
R v Fernando [2002] NSWCCA 28
R v Hayes [2002] NSWCCA 410
R v Lao [2003] NSWCCA 315
R v Pitt [2001] NSWCCA 156

PARTIES:
Karl Douglas Fields - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/2450

COUNSEL:
R Hulme SC - Applicant
DC Frearson SC - Respondent

SOLICITORS:
Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Service - Applicant
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions - Respondent

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
02/61/0160

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Nield DCJ

2004/2450

BRYSON JA
BARR J
HOEBEN J
Wednesday, 16 February, 2005

REGINA v Karl Douglas FIELDS

Judgment

1 BRYSON JA: We will proceed to give judgment and Hoeben J will give judgment first.

2 HOEBEN J:

Offence and sentence
On 11 March 2003 the applicant was sentenced by his Honour Judge Nield in the District Court at Bathurst in relation to the following offence:

Crimes Act

3 The maximum penalty for that offence is imprisonment for 20 years.

4 The applicant entered a plea of guilty to that charge on 9 September 2002 when the matter was listed in the Local Court. The applicant gave evidence before Nield DCJ on 1 November 2002. His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for 6 years commencing 25 January 2003 and expiring on 24 January 2009. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of 4 years commencing 25 January 2003 and expiring on 24 January 2007.

Factual background to offence

5 At 10.30 pm on 24 July 2002 the applicant went to the home of Mr George Edwards, a sixty one year old disability pensioner in Glen Innes. He was accompanied by Ms Georgina Cox, who knocked on the door. When the door was opened the applicant pushed his way into the room and demanded $300 from Mr Edwards. The applicant punched him in the forehead when he refused. Mr Edwards suffered a laceration above his right eye and fell to the ground. The applicant then punched him in the face several times and kicked him about the body.

6 The applicant demanded Mr Edwards’ wallet and when it was not forthcoming he searched Mr Edwards and then his bedroom. The applicant then…

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 Fields

Details

AGLC: Regina v Fields [2005] NSWCCA 37
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 37
Decision Date: 16 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Fields involved the appellant, who was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and intent to rob, under section 95(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales. The appellant had been convicted in the District Court and sought to appeal the conviction and sentence on the basis of the objective seriousness of the offence and the balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm with intent to rob, and the process by which the court should balance aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors, which should have resulted in a lesser sentence. The Crown contended that the trial judge had correctly assessed the objective seriousness and appropriately balanced the factors.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed made an error in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and the balance of aggravating and mitigating factors. The court held that the trial judge had not properly considered the mitigating factors, which included the appellant's background and personal circumstances, and had thus imposed a sentence that was too severe. The court accordingly allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and sentence, and remitted the matter to the District Court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of a comprehensive assessment of the objective seriousness of the offence and the need to properly weigh all relevant mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing.

Orders