Regina v Joseph Phillipe - [2004] NSWCCA 2

CITATION: Regina v Joseph Phillipe [2004] NSWCCA 2

HEARING DATE(S): 03/02/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
3 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 22; Buddin J at 1

DECISION: Grant the applicant an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal. Grant leave to appeal. Dismiss the appeal.

CATCHWORDS: Multiple offences of armed robbery - young offender

LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987

CASES CITED: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v SDM (2002) 51 NSWLR 530

PARTIES :
Regina
Joseph Phillipe

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60328/03

COUNSEL: B Knox SC (Crown)
Applicant in person

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/11/0846

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Backhouse DCJ

60328/03

JAMES J
BUDDIN J
TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 2004

REGINA v JOSEPH PHILLIPE

Judgment

1 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court. He was committed for sentence to that Court following his pleas of guilty to various offences committed in August and December 2001 respectively.

2 In respect of each of four offences of armed robbery committed in August 2001, the applicant was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment to commence on 3 October 2002 and to expire on 2 October 2004 with a non-parole period of 12 months to expire on 2 October 2003. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. In respect of each of three further offences of armed robbery committed in December 2001, the applicant was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment to commence on 3 October 2003 and to expire on 2 October 2006, with a non-parole period of 21 months in each case to expire on 2 July 2005. Those sentences were also ordered to be served concurrently with each other. In respect of a further offence of receiving stolen property in December 2001, the applicant was sentenced to a fixed term of 12 months’ imprisonment. The overall effective sentence is thus one of 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years 9 months.

3 As the applicant was 17 at the time of the commission of the offences, he was dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987. Although the sentencing judge dealt with the applicant according to law, Her Honour nevertheless ordered, pursuant to s 19 of that Act, that the applicant should serve his sentences in a detention centre.

4 Each of the offences of armed robbery attracted a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment, whilst the offence of receiving stolen property attracted a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.

5 The first group of offences in August were committed by the applicant whilst he was in the company of a number of other young males. They occurred within the space of approximately an hour on a Saturday evening. There were three separate incidents. On the first two occasions, there was a single victim, whilst on the…

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 Joseph Phillipe

Details

AGLC: Regina v Joseph Phillipe [2004] NSWCCA 2
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 2
Decision Date: 3 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Joseph Phillipe, the defendant was convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery. The case came before the court with the defendant arguing that he was a young offender who should be considered for rehabilitation rather than imprisonment. The court was tasked with deciding the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account his age and the circumstances of the offences.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the defendant's youth should mitigate his sentence. The court considered the principles of sentencing for young offenders under the Youth Justice Act, which emphasise rehabilitation over punishment. The court also examined the severity of the offences and the defendant's criminal history, if any, to determine the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

The court, after careful consideration, decided that while the defendant's youth was a mitigating factor, the gravity of the armed robberies could not be overlooked. The court recognised the need for deterrence and the protection of the community, but also acknowledged the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that included both a period of imprisonment and a rehabilitation program, aiming to address the defendant's criminal behaviour while providing opportunities for personal growth and reform.

Orders