Regina v Walters - [2001] NSWCCA 265

CITATION: REGINA v WALTERS [2001] NSWCCA 265

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60065/01

HEARING DATE(S): 4 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 July 2001

PARTIES :

The Crown
Tyler Jay Walters ( Appl)

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J at 22; McClellan J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/31/0241

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Coleman DCJ

COUNSEL : D Woodburne (Crown)
P M Winch (Appl)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
D J Humphreys (Appl)

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING - Appeal against sentence - whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the applicant's inability to obtain methadone - s 100 Crimes Act 1900 - letters demanding money with menaces - significant level of criminality

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 ss 99, 100, 117

CASES CITED:
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted but appeal refused

IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

No 60065/01

STUDDERT J

McCLELLAN J

WEDNESDAY, 4 JULY 2001

REGINA v Tyler Joy WALTERS

JUDGMENT

1 McCLELLAN J: On 22 June 2000 the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of by letter demanding money with menaces contrary s 100 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term of ten years.

2 The offence occurred on 23 February 200. Having pleaded guilty the applicant came before his Honour Judge Coleman for sentence on 28 July 2000. On that occasion the applicant asked his Honour to take into account four other offences. The offences comprised two shop lifting matters, interference with a pay telephone and the larceny of a mobile phone. The latter offence allegedly occurred when the applicant was in custody and took a mobile phone from a police pigeon hole in the Transit Police office at Gosford railway station. The maximum penalty for each of the three offences of larceny contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900 is imprisonment for five years.

3 The offence of by letter demanding money with menaces occurred after the applicant was released from the Cessnock Correctional Centre on 24 January 2000. Whilst in the Correctional Centre the applicant had commenced a methadone reduction program and was still on this program when he was released. However, the program was not successful and he again lapsed into a heroin addiction and, needing money to fuel his habit, committed the offence.

4 His Honour found that the offence occurred with minimal planning and was committed on an impulse. He was with a friend and, after driving around the Gosford area without finding anything to steal, it was determined that they would go into a bank, hand over a note and demand money. The applicant did not reveal the name of his accomplice to the police although it is apparent that the police were aware of his identity.

5 The applicant entered the National Australia Bank in Erina, walked to the counter and passed over a note to a trainee teller. The note was written on a TAB ticket which read: "Give…

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 Walters

Details

AGLC: Regina v Walters [2001] NSWCCA 265
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 265
Decision Date: 4 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Regina v Walters, the appellant, Walters, was convicted of multiple counts of letters demanding money with menaces. Walters appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider his inability to obtain methadone as a mitigating factor. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Walters contended that his addiction and inability to access methadone treatment should have been given more weight by the sentencing judge under section 100 of the Crimes Act 1900, which requires courts to consider any matter that might mitigate punishment.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentencing judge failed to appropriately weigh the appellant's addiction and inability to obtain methadone treatment as a mitigating factor and whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's significant level of criminality. The court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed was excessive or manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed considered the appellant's addiction and efforts to seek treatment, but had balanced this against the appellant's significant level of criminality, including the repetitive nature of the offending and the impact on the victims. The court concluded that the sentence was neither excessive nor manifestly inadequate, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders