Regina v Robinson - [2000] NSWCCA 556

CITATION: Regina v Robinson [2000] NSWCCA 556

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60501/99

HEARING DATE(S): 25/02/00

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 February 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Melissa Anne Robinson

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 33; Carruthers AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/61/0090

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Knight DCJ

COUNSEL :
C B Craigie
(Appellant)
P Hock
(Crown/Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Commission of NSW
(Appellant)
S E O'Connor
(Crown/Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentence appeal - obtain benefit by deception s 89 - subjective circumstances - applicant sentenced to full-term custodial sentence - mother of three young children - consideration by the Court of administrative and legislative facilities available to mitigate hardship.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act, 1900.

CASES CITED:
Regina v Edwards (1996) 98 ACrimR 510; Regina v Wirth (1976) 14 SASR 291.

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA60501/99

HIDDEN J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Friday, 25 February 2000

REGINA v Melissa ROBINSON
JUDGMENT
1 CARRUTHERS AJ: Melissa Robinson seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed on her by Knight DCJ at the Dubbo District Court on 25 August 1999. The applicant had earlier pleaded guilty on 89 counts under s178BA of the Crimes Act, 1900, of obtain benefit by deception. That section imposes a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. 2 In relation to the first 88 offences, which fall within a pattern of similar offences, his Honour sentenced the applicant, in each case, to a minimum term of 18 months commencing on 25 August 1999 and expiring on 24 February 2000, together with an additional term of two and a half years to commence on 25 February 2001 and to expire on 24 August 2002. 3 His Honour ordered that the applicant be eligible for release to parole on 24 February 2001, and recommended to the Parole Board that such parole be subject to supervision and further supervision conditions set out in Form 2 of Schedule 1 of the Sentencing General Regulation 1996. 4 In relation to the 89th count which can be categorised as a discrete matter, His Honour nevertheless imposed the same sentence as he had in relation to the earlier matters. Thus those sentences were to be served concurrently. His Honour found special circumstances consisting of the hardship which would be caused to the three young children of the applicant by reason of her imprisonment and her need for a lengthy supervised period of rehabilitation. 5 It is helpful to consider the subject offences in the light of the applicant’s history. The applicant was born at St Leonards, Sydney, on 1 June 1969. When she was aged five years, her family moved to Wellington in New South Wales. She attended the Wellington High School and graduated in 1986 with the Higher School Certificate. Due to a shortage of work in Wellington the applicant moved to Sydney on her own where she obtained work as a clerk with the State…

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 Robinson

Details

AGLC: Regina v Robinson [2000] NSWCCA 556
Case: [2000] NSWCCA 556
Decision Date: 25 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Robinson involved the appellant, who was convicted of obtaining a benefit by deception under section 89 of the relevant statute. The appellant was sentenced to a full-term custodial sentence, which she appealed on the grounds that the primary judge had not adequately considered her subjective circumstances. The appellant, who is the mother of three young children, argued that her unique personal situation warranted a lesser sentence. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue in the appeal was whether the primary judge had failed to sufficiently consider the appellant's personal circumstances, including her status as a mother of young children, when imposing the sentence. The appellant's counsel argued that the court should have considered the availability of administrative and legislative facilities that could mitigate the hardship of a custodial sentence on the appellant and her children. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the primary judge had appropriately balanced the appellant's circumstances with the need to deter similar criminal conduct.

The Court of Appeal held that the primary judge had indeed failed to adequately consider the appellant's personal circumstances, including her status as a mother of young children, when determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that the primary judge had not given sufficient weight to the potential impact of a custodial sentence on the appellant's children, and that this failure constituted a significant error in the sentencing process. The Court of Appeal further noted that the availability of administrative and legislative facilities, such as community-based sentencing options and support services for families affected by incarceration, should have been considered by the primary judge. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the primary judge for resentencing.

In light of the findings, the Court of Appeal ordered that the appellant's appeal be allowed, and the case be remitted to the primary judge for resentencing. The Court emphasised the importance of considering the unique personal circumstances of each offender, particularly in cases where the offender is a parent with young children, and the potential impact of a custodial sentence on the offender's family. The Court also highlighted the need for the primary judge to consider the availability of alternative sentencing options and support services that may mitigate the hardship of incarceration for the offender and their family.

Orders