Regina v Glen Gordon Knowles - [1999] NSWCCA 235

CITATION: Regina v Glen Gordon KNOWLES [1999] NSWCCA 235

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60648 of 1997

HEARING DATE(S): 6 August 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 August 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA
v
GLEN GORDON KNOWLES

JUDGMENT OF: Levine J at 1; Carruthers AJ at 14

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 91/11/1838

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Shillington DCJ

COUNSEL:
R D Ellis
(Crown)
Applicant In Person

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
(Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - s 97 Crimes Act 1900

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
Mill v Regina (1988) 166 CLR 59
Regina v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
Regina v Larson (1989) 44 A Crim R 121

DECISION: See paragraph 13

IN THE COURT
OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60648/97

LEVINE J
CARRUTHERS AJ
FRIDAY 6 AUGUST 1999

REGINA v GLENN GORDON KNOWLES

1 LEVINE J: The applicant appears in person today, seeking leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed upon him by Judge Shillington in the District Court on 4 December 1997. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the offence of robbery in company, for which s 97 of the Crimes Act provides a maximum penalty of twenty years penal servitude. There was taken into account on the Form 1 four counts of assault, one count of goods in custody, one count of fail to appear, one count of fail to comply with a bail undertaking and one count of malicious wounding. 2 The factual background appears to be that on 12 September 1991, the victim was crossing Anzac Parade at Maroubra. He had on his person his takings as a carpenter, being three and a half thousand dollars in fifty dollar bills. He was approached by two unknown persons, who forced him to the ground and held him while the applicant came and went through his pockets and removed the money. The applicant was later identified and arrested by the police on 15 October 1991 and granted bail on 5 December 1991. 3 His trial was not reached on two occasions, namely 19 August 1992 and 17 March 1993, and the applicant was stood over for trial on 25 August 1993, but the victim did not appear. The trial was stood over to 21 February 1994, but there was no appearance by the applicant. 4 Between 31 January 1994 and 13 November 1997, the applicant appeared before various courts in Queensland in relation to matters including fraud, possess dangerous drug and receiving. He was arrested in Queensland on 10 November 1997 in relation to this matter, taken into custody and extradited from that State on 18 November 1997. He pleaded guilty before Judge Shillington on 3 December 1997. 5 The sentence proceedings were adjourned to the following day by his Honour to clarify a matter that is still agitating this applicant, namely an assertion by him that he had been in custody in Queensland for some period of time since 1992. This application was before this Court on 12 March, on…

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 Glen Gordon Knowles

Details

AGLC: Regina v Glen Gordon Knowles [1999] NSWCCA 235
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 235
Decision Date: 6 August 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Glen Gordon Knowles involved the sentencing of the defendant by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The defendant had been convicted of various criminal offences including aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery. The matter came before the court for the purpose of determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crimes. The court was tasked with considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the defendant's background and history.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing framework to apply to the defendant's crimes. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, particularly section 97 of the Crimes Act 1900, which outlines the principles and purposes of sentencing in New South Wales. The court also had to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

In delivering its judgment, the court noted the severity of the defendant's crimes, which involved the use of violence and the violation of the victim's autonomy. The court emphasised the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offences and to serve as a deterrent to others. The court also considered the defendant's background, which included a history of criminal behaviour and substance abuse. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was a term of imprisonment, with specific details regarding parole eligibility and other conditions.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years, followed by a parole period of 5 years. The court also imposed various other conditions on the defendant's release, including mandatory supervision and participation in rehabilitation programs.

Orders