Regina v Rodrigo Arriaza - [2004] NSWCCA 4

CITATION: Regina v Rodrigo Arriaza [2004] NSWCCA 4

HEARING DATE(S): 03/02/2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 February 2004

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1; Buddin J at 2

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Allow the appeal (in part). Quash the sentence imposed in respect of the offence of armed robbery committed on 2 May 2002 (being count 3 in the indictment in District Court file 03/11/0010) and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to a term of 5 years' imprisonment consisting of a non-parole period of 2 years to commence on 6 April 2003 and to expire on 5 April 2005 with the balance of the term of the sentence to expire on 5 April 2008. Dismiss the appeals against the other sentences imposed.

CATCHWORDS: Pleas of guilty to various counts of armed robbery - offender suffering from a mental disorder.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Alexander (2001) 118 A Crim R 350
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R 67
R v Fahda [1999] NSWCCA 267
R v Israil [2002] NSWCCA 255
R v Pavlov (2001) NSWCCA 13
R v Scognamiglio (1991) 56 A Crim R 81
R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

PARTIES :
Regina
Rodrigo Arriaza

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60437/03

COUNSEL: B Knox SC (Crown)
Ms R Burgess (Applicant)

SOLICITORS: B Kavanagh (Crown)
S'OConnor (Applicant)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0011

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Black DCJ

60437/03

JAMES J
BUDDIN J
THURSDAY 5 FEBRUARY 2004

REGINA v RODRIGO ARRIAZA

Judgment

1 JAMES J: I agree with the judgment of Buddin J. The orders of the Court will be as proposed by his Honour.

2 BUDDIN J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court following his pleas of guilty to three counts of armed robbery and one count of armed assault with intent to rob. Each offence attracts a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment.

3 In respect of an offence of armed robbery committed on 6 March 2002 the applicant was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.

4 In respect of an offence of armed robbery committed on 18 March 2002 the applicant was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.

5 In respect of a further offence committed on the same day, of assault with intent to rob whilst being armed, the applicant was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years. All three sentences were ordered to commence on 6 April 2002 and were thus to be served concurrently.

6 In respect of an offence of armed robbery committed on 2 May 2002 the applicant was sentenced to a term of 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2½ years with each term to commence on 10 April 2003 (which was the date upon which sentence was passed). This offence…

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 Rodrigo Arriaza 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 4
Decision Date: 5 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Regina v Rodrigo Arriaza, the defendant was charged with various counts of armed robbery. The case was heard in the relevant court, where the defendant had pleaded guilty to the charges. However, it was noted that the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder, which raised concerns about his fitness to stand trial and the validity of his guilty pleas.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's mental disorder affected his capacity to understand the nature of the charges, the consequences of his guilty pleas, and to participate meaningfully in his defence. The court was required to determine if the defendant's pleas were truly voluntary and informed, given his mental health condition.

The court carefully considered the evidence presented regarding the defendant's mental state and its impact on his decision-making abilities. It was found that the defendant's mental disorder did not significantly impair his understanding of the proceedings or the gravity of his actions. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant's guilty pleas were valid and properly entered. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the charges and the defendant's mental health issues but held that these factors did not invalidate the pleas or necessitate a different legal outcome.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts of armed robbery, taking into account his guilty pleas and the evidence presented. The final orders of the court included a direction for a comprehensive mental health assessment to inform any sentencing considerations and potential rehabilitation measures.

Orders