Regina v Jason Shiagetz - [2003] NSWCCA 115

CITATION: Regina v Jason Shiagetz [2003] NSWCCA 115

HEARING DATE(S): 8 April 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
2 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Levine J at 69; Buddin J at 70

DECISION: Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave granted to appeal against sentence; appeal against sentence dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act

CASES CITED: M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487

PARTIES :
Regina
Jason Shiagetz

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60193/02

COUNSEL: G.I.O Rowling - Crown
In person - Applicant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
In person - Applicant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/11/1121

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Shillington DCJ

60193/02

SULLY J
LEVINE J
BUDDIN J
Friday 2 May 2003

REGINA v JASON SHIAGETZ

Judgment

1 SULLY J:

Introduction

2 The appellant was so tried upon an indictment containing two counts. Count 1 charged an offence of robbery in company contrary to section 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Such an offence attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years. Count 2, which was laid in the alternative to Count 1, charged an offence of robbery contrary to section 112(1) of the Crimes Act. Such an offence attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years.

3 The jury found the appellant guilty as charged in Count 1. The appellant was thereupon convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 4 years commencing on 1 July 2001 and expiring on 30 June 2005; with a non-parole period of 2 years to expire on 30 June 2003.

4 The appellant appeals against his conviction, and applies for leave to appeal against his sentence.

The Crown Case at Trial

5 The alleged victim was one John Mousinho. Mr. Mousinho gave evidence that on the evening of 20 April 2001 he attended a football match at the Sydney Cricket Ground. He arrived at the ground at about 7.00 pm and joined up with a party made up of his wife, and three friends: David Bishop, Susie Mason and Claire McCready. He had ingested no intoxicating liquor before arriving at the ground; and he drank some three schooners of full-strength beer while at the ground.

6 After the game the group went to the Fox and Lion Bar at Fox Studios. They were there from about 11.00 pm until midnight. During that time Mr. Mousinho drank two middies of full-strength beer.

7 After leaving the bar at about midnight the group set off for the Palace Hotel in Flinders Street, Surry Hills. The group walked past the Captain Cook Hotel, the Palace Hotel being somewhat further away on the same side of the street. Mr. Mousinho and Mr. Bishop were walking together, Mr. Bishop being the closer to the gutter. The other members of the group were…

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 Jason Shiagetz

Details

AGLC: Regina v Jason Shiagetz [2003] NSWCCA 115
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 115
Decision Date: 2 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Jason Shiagetz, the appellant, Jason Shiagetz, appealed against his conviction and sentence for robbery in company, as charged under section 112(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The appeal was heard by Sully J, Levine J, and Buddin J in the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary legal issues revolved around the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury's verdict of guilt and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The court found that the evidence presented at trial, though not without inconsistencies and some imprecision, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the charged offence. The jury's verdict was based on the comparative credibility of the witnesses, particularly the alleged victims, John Mousinho and David Bishop, and the appellant. The court concluded that it was open to the jury to accept the victims' accounts and reject the appellant's denial of involvement in the robbery. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Regarding the sentence, the court granted leave to appeal against it but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The appellant argued that the head sentence of 4 years was manifestly excessive. However, the court considered the seriousness of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the statutory maximum penalty of 20 years for the offence of robbery in company. The court found that the sentence was within the range of a sound exercise of sentencing discretion and was not manifestly excessive.

**Orders:**

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
2. Leave to appeal against sentence is granted.
3. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders