Regina v Justin Cram - [2002] NSWCCA 83

CITATION: Regina v Justin Cram [2002] NSWCCA 83

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60420/2001

HEARING DATE(S): 21 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
21 March 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Justin Cram

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 18; Buddin J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/41/0090

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Hosking DCJ

COUNSEL : PG Ingram (Crown)
Applicant in person

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)

CATCHWORDS: Drive in a dangerous manner causing grievous bodily harm - drive conveyance without the owner's consent - Form 1 matters - operation of R v Jurisic - discount for plea of guilty where Crown case overwhelming - "special circumstances" - effect of cumulative sentence - no less severe sentence warranted

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

CASES CITED:
R v Cameron [2002] HCA 6
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

60420 of 2001

GREG JAMES J
BUDDIN J
THURSDAY 21 MARCH 2002

REGINA V JUSTIN CRAM

Judgment

1 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court where he adhered to pleas of guilty originally entered in the Local Court. The charges to which he pleaded guilty were first that, pursuant to s 52A(3)(c) of the Crimes Act, he drove a vehicle in a dangerous manner causing grievous bodily harm. That offence carries a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. In respect of that offence the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years and four months commencing on 31 March 2001 (the date on which he first went into custody) and concluding on 30 July 2004. A non-parole period of thirty months also commencing on 31 March 2001 but concluding on 30 September 2003 was fixed. At the request of the applicant seven additional matters on a Form 1 were taken into account by the sentencing judge when he imposed sentence upon this matter.

2 The applicant also pleaded guilty to an offence brought pursuant to s 154A(1)(b) of the Crimes Act that he drove the vehicle, the subject of the first charge, without the owner’s consent. That offence attracts a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. In respect of that offence the applicant was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment with a nine month non-parole period which was to be served cumulatively upon the first matter. That further sentence was ordered to commence on 31 (sic) September 2003 and to end on 30 September 2004. The applicant’s non-parole period was fixed to expire on 30 June 2004. The overall effect of the sentences imposed was thus a head sentence of three years six months imprisonment and a non-parole period of three years three months imprisonment.

3 The facts in relation to the two charges to which the applicant pleaded guilty are conveniently summarised by the sentencing judge in the following terms:

On 31 March 2001 a Holden Kingswood sedan was stolen from the carpark of…

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 Justin Cram

Details

AGLC: Regina v Justin Cram [2002] NSWCCA 83
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 83
Decision Date: 21 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Justin Cram was a case before the Court of Appeal in which the appellant, Justin Cram, was convicted of dangerous driving causing grievous bodily harm and driving a vehicle without the owner's consent. The primary issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in the discount provided for Cram's plea of guilty and whether the cumulative sentence was appropriate. The case hinged on the interplay between the principles of sentencing for cumulative offences and the discount for a plea of guilty in the context of overwhelming Crown evidence.

The court examined whether the primary judge was correct in applying a discount for Cram's plea of guilty, considering the strength of the Crown's case. The appeal also questioned whether the "special circumstances" exception under section 23A of the Sentencing Act applied, potentially allowing for a more severe sentence despite the plea of guilty. Additionally, the court considered whether the cumulative sentence for both offences was appropriate, given the overlapping nature of the harm caused by Cram's actions.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing for cumulative offences and that the discount for Cram's plea of guilty was appropriate, given the overwhelming nature of the Crown's case. The court held that the "special circumstances" exception did not apply in this instance, and therefore, the cumulative sentence was warranted. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld as appropriate for the offences committed.

The court did not alter the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The cumulative sentence of imprisonment for both offences was deemed appropriate, considering the severity of the harm caused and the nature of the offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders