Regina v Griggs - [2000] NSWCCA 33

Reported Decision: [2000] 111 A Crim R 233

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Griggs [2000] NSWCCA 33 revised - 7/03/2000

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60507/99

HEARING DATE(S): 7/2/2000

JUDGMENT DATE:
29 February 2000

PARTIES :

Crown - Appellant
Lee Jason GRIGGS

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Sully J at 8; Simpson J at 19

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 60507/99

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : English DCJ

COUNSEL : C K Maxwell QC - Crown Appellant
P J D Hamill - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown Appellant
T A Murphy - Respondent

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Sentencing Act 1989

CASES CITED:
R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Jurisic (1998) 45 NSWLR 209
R v Farah (NSWCCA, unreported, 11 December 1998)
R v Silver (1999) NSWCCA 108
R v Tsoukatos
R v Kyroglou [1999] NSWCCA 106
R v Henry and Barber [1999] NSWCCA 107
R v Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118
R v Pham (1991) 55 A Crim R 128
R v Tran [1999] NSWCCA 109

DECISION: Crown appeal against sentence upheld; recognisance granted in the District Court set aside; respondent re-sentenced for a fixed term of 18 months to be served by way of periodic detention.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60507/99

GROVE J
SULLY J
SIMPSON J

Tuesday 29 February 2000

REGINA v LEE JASON GRIGGS

JUDGMENT
1    GROVE J : I have had the advantage of reading the draft judgments of both Sully J and Simpson J. I share their conclusion that the Crown has demonstrated relevant error and I therefore turn to the remaining issue whether this Court should exercise its discretion to dismiss the appeal nevertheless or whether an adequate sentence, assessed with the restraint applicable to increased sentence consequent upon successful Crown appeal, should be imposed.
2    Simpson J sketched the facts of the offence. I would add some detail. Anna Bay is a village to the east of the trunk road which passes between Port Stephens and Stockton. It is relatively isolated. Although the respondent claimed to police that it started as a joke, the intention to rob the store was discussed by the three offenders who ultimately were involved, earlier in the day when they were gathered at the house of a friend. It had obviously become serious when they equipped themselves with balaclavas, gloves and knives.
3    The raid on the store took place just before the scheduled 8 pm closing time. The older of the two male staff members who became the immediate victims was aged twenty one years. I extract description of part of his ordeal from his statement to police:

“The person who had come around the back of the counter, grabbed me with his right arm and held me by my right bicep. He then pulled me to the floor, and said, ‘Get onto the ground.’ At first I went down onto my knees, then he pushed me…

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 Griggs

Details

AGLC: Regina v Griggs [2000] NSWCCA 33
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 33
Decision Date: 29 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Griggs involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on Lee Jason Griggs for robbery in company. Griggs had pleaded guilty to robbing two staff members of a store at Anna Bay, using knives and tape to restrain them. The Court of Criminal Appeal upheld the Crown's appeal against the sentence, finding it manifestly inadequate. The judges identified errors in the District Court's sentencing process, including the failure to consider more severe sentencing options than a recognizance. The Court considered the objective seriousness of the offence, the minimal planning involved, and the use of weapons. Despite Griggs' youth and efforts at rehabilitation, the Court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary. The Court re-sentenced Griggs to a fixed term of 18 months to be served by way of periodic detention, allowing him to serve his sentence on weekends to facilitate his ongoing rehabilitation and employment.

Orders