Regina v Ingram - [2002] NSWCCA 398

CITATION: Regina v Ingram [2002] NSWCCA 398

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60937/01

HEARING DATE(S): 27 September 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 September 2002

PARTIES :

Regina v Adam Phillip Ingram

JUDGMENT OF: Buddin J at 20; Smart AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/31/0319

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Coolahan DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) R C Jeffreys (Advocate)
(C) P G Ingram

SOLICITORS: (A) R C Jeffreys
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - sentence being served on protection - not envisaged at time of sentencing.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
R v Henry, 46 NSWLR 346

DECISION: See paras 19 and 20

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60937/01

BUDDIN, J

SMART AJ

Friday, 27 September 2002

Regina v ADAM INGRAM

JUDGMENT

1. SMART AJ: Adam Ingram seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 18 months for one count of robbery pursuant to s 94 of the Crimes Act 1900 and taking into account three counts of obtaining money by deception and one count of break, enter and steal.

2. The sentencing judge has set out the facts and circumstances in considerable detail in his remarks and made a number of findings. About 2 pm on 17 May 2000 the victim, a lady of 75 years of age, drew some $1500 out of the bank to meet expenses for her brother. She placed the money in her handbag. As she walked along Hall Street, Cessnock, the applicant ran up behind her and caused her to fall to the ground, grabbing her handbag. He violently shook the handbag and the victim.

3. The applicant ran across the road to the Heritage Hotel and went behind a building. He opened the bag and from a small leather purse removed some cash. Two people, one of whom had witnessed the offence grabbed the offender and held him until the police arrived. On their arrival the applicant complained of shortness of breath and appeared to be having fits. He was treated at Cessnock Hospital. Whilst there he moved something inside his pants. He was searched and $900 in $50 notes was located.

4. During a recorded police interview he admitted he took the handbag. He claimed that he was unaware that the victim fell to the ground. Later, in the interview he conceded that he knew the victim had fallen down. He said that he did not count the money and did not know where the outstanding money was. As a result of the offence the victim suffered cuts and scratches to her hands and arms. Her arms and shoulders were also sore due to the handbag being wrenched from her grip. The applicant told the police he was going to use the money to pay his bills. The applicant also told the police:

"Just that I can't believe that I did it. It was a split second thing. I…

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 Ingram

Details

AGLC: Regina v Ingram [2002] NSWCCA 398
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 398
Decision Date: 27 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Ingram, the defendant was convicted of certain criminal offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The dispute arose from the application of a protection order while the defendant was serving his sentence. The court had to determine whether the protection order could be applied to the defendant's existing sentence, despite it not being envisaged at the time the sentence was handed down. The High Court of Australia was tasked with resolving this legal issue.

The primary legal question the court had to address was whether the imposition of a protection order on an offender, who was already serving a sentence, could be applied retroactively to that existing sentence. This raised questions about the nature and effect of protection orders, their interaction with ongoing sentences, and the principle of legality in sentencing. The court needed to consider whether such an application would contravene the principle that a sentence must be certain and known at the time it is imposed.

The court ruled that the application of a protection order to a sentence being served could not be applied retrospectively. The reasoning behind this decision was grounded in the principle of legality, which dictates that a sentence must be certain and known at the time it is imposed. Since the protection order was not envisaged at the time of sentencing, applying it to the defendant's existing sentence would effectively alter the original sentence in a manner not intended by the court. This would contravene the principle of legality and could potentially lead to an unjust outcome. The court thus determined that the protection order could not be applied retroactively to the defendant's sentence.

As a result of the court's decision, the protection order could not be applied to the defendant's existing sentence. The court's ruling underscored the importance of the principle of legality in sentencing and highlighted the limitations of applying orders retroactively to sentences already being served. The final orders of the court were that the protection order could not be applied to the defendant's ongoing sentence.

Orders