Regina v Kollas - [2002] NSWCCA 15

CITATION: Regina v Kollas [2002] NSWCCA 15

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60396/01

HEARING DATE(S): 11/02/02

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 February 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Robbie Ashley Kollas

JUDGMENT OF: Kirby J at 1; Hidden J at 28

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0731

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Hosking DCJ

COUNSEL : L Lamprati (Crown)
P J D Hamill (Appl)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
D J Humphreys (Appl)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law & Procedure - Sentence - Appeal against severity - Inadequate sentence of co-offender - Parity in such circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, 1999
Court of Criminal Appeal Act, 1912

CASES CITED:
The Queen v Doan (2000) 115 A Crim R 497
The Queen v Capper (1994) 69 ACR 64
R v Tislandis (1982) 2 NSWLR 430
The Queen v Diamond (CCA, unreported, 08.02.93)
R v Simpson [2001] NSWCCA 534
Power v The Queen (1973) 131 CLR 623

DECISION: Leave to argue the appeal.; Appeal dismissed.

60396/01

HIDDEN J
KIRBY J

Monday 11 February 2002

REGINA v Robbie Ashley KOLLAS

Judgment

This is an appeal by Robbie Ashley Kollas (the applicant), against a sentence imposed by Judge Hosking on 1 June 2001. Mr Kollas was charged with three offences as follows:

First, that on 23 December 1999 at Willoughby, he did maliciously inflict grievous bodily harm upon George Kanaan with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Crimes Act

Thirdly, that on the same day he maliciously damaged property, namely a glass door, contrary to s195 of the Crimes Act.

2 Mr Kollas pleaded not guilty to each offence. He was tried before Judge Hosking and a jury. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on the first count. However, it found him guilty on counts 2 and 3. His Honour therefore was obliged to sentence in respect of those counts. He did so on 15 June 2001, backdating the sentence to the time Mr Kollas went into custody, 16 March 2001. His Honour imposed a term of imprisonment of three years in respect of count 2 with a non-parole period of two years expiring on 15 March 2002. On the remaining count, his Honour sentenced Mr Kollas to a fixed term of six months, concurrent with the previous term.

3 The events giving rise to these charges occurred on 23 December 1999. Mr Kollas was driving a vehicle in Willoughby. He was accompanied by his mother and half brother, Luke Jones, who was younger. An incident occurred involving another vehicle. It was a vehicle used by the pizza shop in Willoughby Road for the delivery of pizzas. There was an exchange of abuse. The abuse was followed by what is commonly referred to as “tailgating”, that is, Mr Kollas driving uncomfortably close to the vehicle in front, the pizza shop vehicle.

4 That…

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 Kollas

Details

AGLC: Regina v Kollas [2002] NSWCCA 15
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 15
Decision Date: 11 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Kollas involved an appeal by the defendant against the severity of a sentence imposed by the lower court. The defendant, Kollas, was convicted of an offence and received a sentence that he deemed inadequate when compared to that of his co-offender. The appeal was heard in the higher court which was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was just and whether there was a need for parity in sentencing between co-offenders.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the disparity in sentencing between Kollas and his co-offender warranted a reduction in Kollas' sentence. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and whether the original sentence took into account all relevant factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, Kollas' role in the crime, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the lower court had appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing the sentence and whether there was a need for parity in sentencing between co-defendants.

The court, in its reasoning, emphasised the importance of individualised sentencing, where the sentence should reflect the unique circumstances of the offender and the offence. It noted that while there may be circumstances where parity in sentencing is appropriate, it is not an absolute rule. The court found that the lower court had considered the relevant factors in imposing the sentence and that the disparity in sentencing between Kollas and his co-offender did not result from an error in principle or a failure to consider relevant mitigating factors. The court concluded that the original sentence was not inadequate and did not require adjustment on the basis of parity with the co-offender's sentence.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the severity of the sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate and that there were no grounds for reducing the sentence on the basis of parity with the co-offender's sentence. The original sentence was therefore upheld.

Orders