Regina v Taylor - [2005] NSWCCA 242

CITATION:
Regina v Taylor [2005] NSWCCA 242

HEARING DATE(S): 28 June 2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

28 June 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Grove J at 1; Hoeben J at 26; Hall J at 27

DECISION:
APPEAL ALLOWED; APPELLANT RESENTENCED

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - SENTENCE - ELEMENT OF OFFENCE TREATED AS ADDITIONAL AGGRAVATING FACTOR - PARITY WITH CO-OFFENDERS - LONG PRISON TERM CONTRASTED WITH WHOLLY NON-CUSTODIAL PUNISHMENTS - LONG DELAY IN OFFENDER BEING TRIED OWING TO FINDINGS OF UNFITNESS TO BE TRIED - SIGNIFICANT MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

LEGISLATION CITED:

s 21A(2) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

PARTIES:
Regina v Darren Rodney Taylor

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2005/610

COUNSEL:
G. Rowling (Crown)
J. Stratton SC (Appellant)

SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh (DPP)
S. O'Connor (Appellant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
01/31/0204

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Bell DCJ

2005/610
GROVE J
HOEBEN J
HALL J

Tuesday 28 June 2005

REGINA v DARREN RODNEY TAYLOR

Judgment

1 GROVE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by Bell DCJ in the District Court following the trial of the applicant at Tamworth upon an indictment containing two counts charging breaking, entering and stealing and robbery with a dangerous weapon. Those offences carry prescribed maximum penalties of fourteen years and twenty five years imprisonment respectively. His Honour sentenced the applicant on count 1 to imprisonment for a fixed term of four years and on count 2 to imprisonment consisting of a non parole period of two years with a total term of four years and six months commencing after the service of three years, part of the sentence imposed upon the first count. The effective aggregate sentence amounted to a non parole period of five years with a total term of seven years and six months. His Honour’s statement in his remarks that the totality of sentence was eight and half years was inaccurate.

2 The first offence had occurred between 23 and 28 December 1997 and the second on 1 January 1998. The applicant was arrested on 31 May 2000 at Darwin in the Northern Territory. His Honour set out the detailed history which led to the delay in the applicant being presented for trial. Significantly he had been referred to the Mental Health Review Tribunal and was not declared fit for trial until 2004.

3 The offences occurred when the applicant was aged eighteen years. He was staying with his mother at her residence in Tamworth. Mrs Taylor’s neighbours were leaving their house to visit Sydney. There was an arrangement for Mrs Taylor to feed their animals. The neighbour was the President of Tamworth Pistol Club and kept a number of weapons in a safe in the bedroom of his house. The applicant and one Walters broke and entered the neighbour’s house and removed the safe. They took it to Walters’ home where they, in company with a third man, Blackman, attempted to open the safe. Their attempts were unsuccessful and they acquired the assistance of a fourth…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: Regina v Taylor [2005] NSWCCA 242
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 242
Decision Date: 28 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Taylor involved the defendant, Taylor, who was being sentenced for a crime that had taken a long time to come to trial due to previous findings of unfitness to stand trial. The Court of Appeal examined the sentencing principles applied by the trial judge, particularly the treatment of the element of the offence as an additional aggravating factor. Taylor's co-offenders received wholly non-custodial sentences, creating a disparity that the Court of Appeal needed to assess. The legal issues centred on whether the trial judge had correctly considered the parity principle in sentencing, given the significant mental health issues Taylor faced, and the considerable delay in the proceedings.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the parity principle in sentencing, particularly in light of the wholly non-custodial sentences received by Taylor's co-offenders. The court held that the trial judge had not sufficiently weighed the mitigating factors of Taylor's significant mental health issues and the long delay in the proceedings. The appellate court also noted that the trial judge's treatment of the element of the offence as an additional aggravating factor did not align with established sentencing principles. Consequently, the Court of Appeal quashed the sentence and ordered a resentencing hearing.

The Court of Appeal directed that the resentencing must properly consider the parity principle, the significant mental health issues of the defendant, and the lengthy delay in bringing the case to trial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the sentencing reflects a balanced approach, taking into account both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case. The defendant was to be reassessed to determine the appropriate sentence, with particular attention to the mitigating circumstances that had not been adequately considered at the original sentencing hearing.

Orders