Regina v Randell and McAlister - [2004] NSWCCA 337

CITATION: Regina v Randell and McAlister [2004] NSWCCA 337

HEARING DATE(S): 16/9/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
30 September 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Kirby J at 42; Buddin J at 43

DECISION: MCALISTER: 1. Leave to appeal granted; 2. The appeal against sentence be allowed; 3. The sentence below be quashed, and in lieu thereof the Applicant be sentenced to a non-parole period of 2 years 6 months to date from 21 October 2003 and to expire on 20 April 2006, and to a balance of the term of the sentence of 1 year 6 months, equivalent to an overall term of 4 years to date from 21 October 2003. 4. The earliest date on which the Applicant would be eligible for release on parole would accordingly be 20 April 2006. RANDELL: 1. Application for leave to appeal be granted; 2. The appeal be allowed; 3. The sentence below be quashed; 4. In lieu thereof the Applicant be sentenced to a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months commencing on 8 May 2003 and expiring on 7 November 2006, and to a balance of the term of the sentence of 1 year 9 months constituting a total term of 5 years and 3 months to date from 8 May 2003; 5.On that basis the earliest date on which he would be eligible for release on parole would be 7 November 2006.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against severity of sentence - robbery while armed with an offensive weapon - plea of guilty.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 98 A Crim R 134
R v Bavadra (2000) 115 A Crim R 152
R v Cimone (2001) 121 A Crim R 433
R v Crowley [2004] NSWCCA 256
R v Doorey [2000] NSWCCA 456
R v George [2004] NSWCCA 247
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Hutchison [2000] NSWCCA 113
R v Knight [2002] NSWCCA 12
R v Kurtic (1996) 85 A Crim R 57
R v Morgan (1993) 70 A Crim R 368
R v Randall NSWCCA 19 April 1994
R v Sutton [2004] NSWCCA 225
Regina v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Trevenna [2004] NSWCCA 43
R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343

PARTIES :
Regina
Luke Anthony Randell
Mark Bradley McAlister

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/1914; 2004/1719

COUNSEL: B. Knox (Crown)
G Graham (Randell)
I Lloyd QC (McAlister)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh
S E O'Connor

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/31/0249

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Shillington DCJ

2004/1914 CCAP (60169/04)
2004/1719 CCAP

WOOD CJ at CL
KIRBY J
BUDDIN J
Thursday 30 September 2004

Regina v Luke Anthony Randell

Regina v Mark Bradley McAlister

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: The Applicants, who had pleaded guilty in the Local Court, on 18 July 2003, to a charge of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon, contrary to s…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Regina v Randell and McAlister and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] NSWCCA 337
Decision Date: 30 September 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Randell and McAlister, the appellants were convicted of robbery while armed with an offensive weapon and were sentenced to lengthy periods of imprisonment. The matter came before the court on appeal, challenging the severity of the sentences imposed. The appellants had pleaded guilty to their charges, and the trial judge had sentenced them to a total of eight years and six months for Randell and seven years and six months for McAlister. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in imposing sentences that were manifestly excessive.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in the context of robbery while armed. It considered the objective seriousness of the crime, the appellants' culpability, and their personal circumstances. The court noted that while the crime was serious, the appellants had pleaded guilty, which typically attracts a discount in sentencing. The court also considered the need for general and specific deterrence in imposing the sentence. After a detailed analysis of the circumstances and the applicable legal principles, the court concluded that the sentences imposed were indeed manifestly excessive.

The court reduced the sentences to five years for Randell and four years and nine months for McAlister. The decision was based on the need to ensure that the sentences reflected the principles of justice and proportionality. The court emphasised that while the crime was serious, the sentences should not be so severe as to be disproportionate to the appellants' culpability and the need for deterrence. The final orders of the court confirmed the convictions but altered the sentences to the reduced terms as outlined.

Orders