Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Snider

Regina v Snider

Case [2004] NSWCCA 134 11 May 2004

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Regina v Snider [2004] NSWCCA 134

HEARING DATE(S): 02/04/04

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 May 2004

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sperling J at 2; Kirby J at 3

DECISION: (1) That the appeal be allowed; (2) That the sentence of Gibson DCJ on 16.10.03 be quashed; (3) That, in lieu thereof, the respondent be sentenced as follows; Count 1: A fixed term of imprisonment of 18 months to commence on 2.4.03 and to expire on 1.10.04; Count 2: A concurrent fixed term of imprisonment of 6 months to commence on 2.4.03 and to expire on 1.10.03; Count 3: A concurrent fixed term of imprisonment of 3 months to commence on 2.4.03 and to expire on 1.7.03; Count 4: A term of imprisonment which is to consist of a non parole period of 2 years and a total term of 4-1/2 years, each to date from 2.4.04, with the non parole period to expire on 1.4.06, upon which date the respondent will be eligible for release on parole.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Practice & Procedure - Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence - breaches of bond and armed robbery - no reasons for departure from guideline - whether sentencing remarks are "evidence" in terms of proviso to Criminal Appeal Act s12(1) - admissible on appeal although not tendered before sentencing Judge.

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

CASES CITED: R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Ceissman (2001) 119 A Crim R 535
R v Thomson & Houlton (1999-2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Richards [1981] 2 NSWLR 464
R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34
R v J (1992) 59 SASR 145
R v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R
R v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v KBM [2004] NSWCCA 123

PARTIES :
Regina
Jye Snider

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60483/03

COUNSEL: P Power SC (Crown/Appl)
C B Craigie SC (Resp)

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh (Crown/Appl)
SRACLS (Resp)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 03/11/0633

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

60483/03

WOOD CJ at CL
SPERLING J
KIRBY J
Tuesday 11 May 2004

REGINA v Jye SNIDER

Judgment

1 WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft form the judgment of Kirby J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour.

2 SPERLING J: I agree with Kirby J.

3 KIRBY J: This is an appeal against sentence by the Crown. On 16 October 2003 Jye Snider appeared for sentence before Gibson DCJ. He pleaded guilty to the offence of armed robbery. He also acknowledged that, by such conduct, he was in breach of three bonds which had been imposed by his Honour Judge Nield (under s12 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999) on 7 March 2003. His Honour was therefore called upon to sentence…

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 Snider

Details

AGLC: Regina v Snider [2004] NSWCCA 134
Case: [2004] NSWCCA 134
Decision Date: 11 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Regina v Snider concerned an appeal by the Crown against the sentencing of the respondent, Snider, who was convicted of multiple offences including breaches of bond and armed robbery. The trial judge had imposed a sentence that the Crown considered inadequate in light of the severity of Snider's criminal conduct. The case reached the court, which was required to determine whether the sentence was indeed inadequate and whether the Crown's appeal was justified. The court was also required to decide if the sentencing remarks provided by the trial judge, which were not tendered before the sentencing judge, could be considered "evidence" under the proviso to Criminal Appeal Act s12(1).

In examining the adequacy of the sentence, the court considered the nature and seriousness of the offences committed by Snider. The court noted that Snider had a history of criminal conduct, which included multiple breaches of bond and an armed robbery. The court assessed whether the sentence imposed adequately reflected the gravity of these offences. Additionally, the court had to determine if there were any reasons provided by the trial judge for deviating from the sentencing guidelines. The court scrutinised the sentencing remarks to ascertain whether they constituted "evidence" as per the proviso to Criminal Appeal Act s12(1). If they did, the remarks could be considered on appeal even though they were not presented to the sentencing judge.

The court found that the sentence was inadequate given the seriousness of Snider's criminal conduct. It was noted that the trial judge had not provided any reasons for departing from the sentencing guidelines, which undermined the justification for the imposed sentence. The court held that the sentencing remarks could be considered as "evidence" under the proviso to Criminal Appeal Act s12(1), allowing them to be examined on appeal. Consequently, the court allowed the Crown's appeal and remitted the matter to the trial court for resentencing. The trial court was directed to impose a sentence that appropriately reflected the seriousness of Snider's offences, taking into account the relevant sentencing principles and guidelines.

Orders