Regina v Timmis - [2003] NSWCCA 158

CITATION: Regina v Timmis [2003] NSWCCA 158

HEARING DATE(S): 16 June 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
20 June 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Hodgson JA at 1; Simpson J at 2; Greg James J at 48

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, Part 3 Division 3

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), Part 3 Division 3, s44
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s447B
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s6

CASES CITED: Attorney General's Application under s37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 [2002] NSWCCA 581, unreported, 20 December 2002

PARTIES :
Crown - Respondent
Michael Anthony Timmis - Applicant

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60061/03

COUNSEL: D Howard - Crown
P Hamill - Applicant

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor - Crown
Gregory J Goold - Applicant

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/21/3384

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Sides DCJ

60061/03

HODGSON JA
SIMPSON J
GREG JAMES J
Friday 20 June 2003

REGINA v Michael TIMMIS

Judgment

1 HODGSON JA: I agree with Simpson J and Greg James J.

2 SIMPSON J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon the applicant in the District Court on 28 June 2002.

3 On 8 March 2002 the applicant was charged in the District Court on an indictment containing four counts, of which the second and fourth were alternative to the first and third. The applicant entered pleas of not guilty to each primary charge, and guilty to each alternative charge. The Crown accepted those pleas in full satisfaction of the indictment.

4 Pursuant to Part 3 Division 3 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (“the Sentencing Procedure Act”), the applicant asked that four further offences, listed on the document known as a Form 1 (“the (first) Form 1 offences”) of which he admitted his guilt, be taken into account on his sentences. Because further charges were then pending, sentencing in relation to this indictment was deferred.

5 On 26 June 2002 the applicant again appeared in the District Court, charged with a single count of larceny of a motor vehicle. He pleaded guilty to this offence. In relation to this indictment he asked that three further offences, listed on a second Form 1 (“the (second) Form 1 offences”), of which he also admitted his guilt, be taken into account.

6 A sentence hearing in relation to all matters followed and the applicant was sentenced on 28 June 2002.

7 The charges to which the applicant pleaded guilty, the Form 1 offences and the sentences imposed were as follows:

the first indictment:

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 Timmis

Details

AGLC: Regina v Timmis [2003] NSWCCA 158
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 158
Decision Date: 20 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Timmis, the accused faced sentencing after being found guilty of various criminal offences. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the judge had to determine the appropriate punishment for Timmis. The legal issues before the court involved the application of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, specifically focusing on Part 3 Division 3. This division outlines the principles and procedures for sentencing, including the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the principles of parity and proportionality.

The court had to assess the severity of Timmis's crimes and weigh various factors to determine an appropriate sentence. Key considerations included the nature and circumstances of the offences, Timmis's criminal history, his remorse, and any other relevant mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The court also needed to ensure that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed and aligned with the principles set out in the Sentencing Act. Additionally, the judge had to ensure that the sentence reflected the need to deter Timmis and others from committing similar offences in the future.

After carefully considering all the relevant factors, the court concluded that the offences committed by Timmis warranted a significant custodial sentence. The judge found that while there were some mitigating factors, the severity and premeditated nature of the crimes required a robust response to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence. The court imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the aim of rehabilitation, ultimately aiming to protect the community and ensure that Timmis was held accountable for his actions. The specific details of the sentence were not disclosed in the summary provided, but the overall outcome reflected a comprehensive application of the statutory sentencing guidelines.

Orders