Regina v Stirrat - [2003] NSWCCA 350

CITATION: REGINA v STIRRAT [2003] NSWCCA 350

HEARING DATE(S): 19 November 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 November 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1, 40; Grove J at 34; Adams J at 35

DECISION: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - no question of principle

CASES CITED: R v Carter (2001) NSWCCA 245
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610

PARTIES :
Regina v Graham Emlyn Stirrat

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60256 of 2003

COUNSEL: In person (Appellant)
E. Wilkins (Crown)

SOLICITORS: In person (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 02/31/0338

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Nader ADCJ

60256 of 2003

HANDLEY JA
GROVE J
ADAMS J
19 November 2003

REGINA v GRAHAM EMLYN STIRRAT

Judgment

1 HANDLEY JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the Newcastle Local Court on 27 September 2002 to four charges, two of armed robbery and two of robbery, and was committed for sentence to the Newcastle District Court under s 51A of the Justices Act.

2 He came before Nader ADCJ for sentence on 29 October 2002, having been in custody following his arrest on 8 August and he was sentenced on 4 December 2002.

3 In addition to the four charges to which he pleaded guilty, there were also two other offences of demanding money with menaces, which the applicant asked to be taken into account under a Form 1.

4 The first charge was that on 23 July 2002 at Newcastle he robbed Sally Leslie of $350 in cash while armed. The second was that on 24 July, the following day, he robbed Tracey Maher of $370 in cash at Cooks Hill, also in Newcastle. That was not a charge of armed robbery but simple robbery.

5 The third charge was that on 28 July he robbed Colby Hill of $130, the property of the restaurant Henny Penny. That again was a charge of simple robbery. The fourth charge was that on 7 August 2002 at The Junction, again in the Newcastle district, he robbed Debra Haigh of $2,815, the property of the Greater Building Society while being armed with a knife.

6 The first Form 1 offence of demanding money with menaces related to the Racecourse Newsagency at Hamilton, and occurred on 31 July. The other second related to the St George Bank at Hamilton on 7 August. The applicant was arrested on 8 August. Nader ADCJ imposed the following sentences: For Count 1 he imposed a sentence of two years and five months to commence on 8 August 2002 and expire on 7 January 2005. The non-parole period was subsumed by sentences imposed for the other offences.

7 On Count 2, for simple robbery, he imposed a sentence of one year and six months commencing on 8 April 2004 and expiring on 7 October 2005. That was made consecutive on the non-parole period in the sentence on Count 1.

8 On Count…

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 Stirrat

Details

AGLC: Regina v Stirrat [2003] NSWCCA 350
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 350
Decision Date: 19 November 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Regina v Stirrat was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The appellant, Stirrat, was convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery. The appeal focused solely on the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The Crown did not contend that there was any error of principle in the sentencing process, but rather that the sentence was insufficient given the gravity of the crimes committed. The appeal centred on the appropriate weight to be given to various aggravating and mitigating factors in the sentencing of Stirrat.

The primary legal issue for the court to address was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court was tasked with reviewing the trial judge's assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors and determining if there was an error in the application of the law that warranted interference with the sentence. The court had to consider whether the totality of the circumstances justified a reduction in the sentence, or if the trial judge's determination was sound and should stand.

In its judgment, the court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence. The court highlighted that the trial judge had given due weight to the seriousness of the crimes, the appellant's criminal history, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that there was no error of principle in the sentencing process and that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the offences. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence be dismissed, and the original sentence imposed by the trial judge be upheld. The appellant was to continue serving the sentence as determined by the trial court.

Orders