Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Robert John Strong

Regina v Robert John Strong

Case [2003] NSWCCA 123 8 May 2003

Sentencing

Appeal

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
141 A Crim R 56

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Robert John Strong [2003] NSWCCA 123

HEARING DATE(S): 5 December 2002; 14 March 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 May 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Dunford J at 106; Buddin J at 107

DECISION: As to substantive sentences; Leave to appeal against both sentences granted; both sentences passed in District Court quashed; applicant re-sentenced as per para 105 (3); As to the Habitual Criminal Act proceedings; Application for leave to appeal against Habitual Criminals Act pronouncement granted; appeal against such pronouncement dismissed; application for leave to appeal against sentence passed pursuant to that pronouncement granted; appeal against such sentence allowed - that the sentence be quashed and applicant re-sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years to commence on 4 October 2000 and to expire on 3 October 2008

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW)
Habitual Criminals Act 1957 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Inebriates Act 1912 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Veen No. 2 v The Queen (1988) 164 CLR 465
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Reg v Perese [2001] NSWCCA 478
Wilkins v Reg (1988) A Crim R 445
Reg v Spiero (1979) 22 SASR 543
Reg v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
Reg v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
Reg v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Watson v The Superintendent, Metropolitan Reception Centre (1971) 1 NSWLR 67
R v Malcolm (1908) 8 SR (NSW) 6
Ex Parte Bowen (1917) 34 WN (NSW) 41
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
R v Riley (1973) 2 NSWLR 107
R v Fahey [1954] VLR 460
McGarry v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 121
R v Griffen (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 548
R v McLean (2001) 121 A Crim R 484
R v Leete (2001) 125 A Crim R 37
R v Pamplin [2001] NSWCCA 327
Histollo Pty Ltd v Director-General National Parks and Wildlife Service (1998) 45 NSWLR 661
R v Cameron (2002) 187 ALR 65
R v Sharma (2002) 54 NSWLR 300

PARTIES :
Regina
Robert John Strong

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60145/01; 60475/01

COUNSEL: P. E. Barrett - Crown
D. A. Buchanan SC/G. A. Bashir - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. E. O'Connor - Crown
D. J. Humphreys - Appellant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 00/51/0196

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Freeman DCJ

60145/01
60475/01
SULLY J
DUNFORD J
BUDDIN J

Thursday 8 May 2003

REGINA v ROBERT JOHN STRONG

Judgment

1 SULLY J:

INTRODUCTION

2 On 22 November 2000 the applicant, Mr. Strong, pleaded guilty in the Local Court at Armidale to two charges, each of which alleged an offence contrary to section 562AB of the Crimes Act 1900 (N.S.W.). Any such offence attracts a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years and/or a fine of $5,000.

3 The first of those two charges alleged that the applicant,…

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 Robert John Strong

Details

AGLC: Regina v Robert John Strong [2003] NSWCCA 123
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 123
Decision Date: 8 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Robert John Strong involved an appeal against the sentences passed by the District Court at Armidale, and an appeal against a pronouncement made, and a sentence passed, pursuant to the Habitual Criminals Act 1957 (NSW). The applicant, Robert John Strong, had been convicted on two charges under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), and had also pleaded guilty to two additional matters. The sentences passed by the District Court were for the intimidation offence, imprisonment for 4 years commencing on 4 October 2000 and expiring on 3 October 2004, with a non-parole period of 3 years; and for the stalking offence, imprisonment for 5 years commencing on 4 October 2003 and expiring on 3 October 2008, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The Crown then made an application under the Habitual Criminals Act to have the applicant declared, and sentenced further as, an habitual criminal. The application was successful, and the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 14 years, dated to commence on 4 October 2000. The applicant appealed against the sentences passed by the District Court, and against the pronouncement and sentence passed pursuant to the Habitual Criminals Act. The Court of Criminal Appeal allowed both appeals, quashed the sentences passed by the District Court, quashed the pronouncement and sentence passed pursuant to the Habitual Criminals Act, and remitted the entire matter to the District Court for further determination. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the District Court had erred in failing to allow a discount on the sentence for the stalking offence by reason of the applicant's plea of guilty at the first possible opportunity. The Court of Criminal Appeal also held that the primary judge had miscarried in his exercise of the discretion reposed in him by the Habitual Criminals Act, and that the appropriate course was to quash the pronouncement and the sentence which was imposed in consequence of it. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that the appropriate course was to remit the entire matter to the District Court for further determination.

Orders