Legal Research
Cases
Regina v Webster

Regina v Webster

Case [1999] NSWCCA 313 27 September 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: REGINA v. WEBSTER [1999] NSWCCA 313

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60330 of 1999

HEARING DATE(S): Monday 27 September 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 September 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
WEBSTER, Patrick John

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 55; Sully J at 57; Greg James J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0172

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Moore, DCJ.

COUNSEL: Crown: M.M. Cunneen
Resp: S. Odgers

SOLICITORS: Crown: S.E. O'Connor
Resp: Trevor Nyman & Co.

CATCHWORDS: Armed robbery - Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence - minimum term disproportionately short - rehabilitation to be weighed with objective considerations including personal and general deterrence - minimum term to reflect period in custody objective circumstances require be served - effect of guideline judgment in Henry & Ors - necessity for sentencing judges to accept and apply principles.

ACTS CITED: Justices Act
Community Welfare Services Act (Vic)

CASES CITED:
Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111
Atonio [1999] NSWCCA 266
Vu (CCA, unreported 11 September 1993)
Bugmy (1990) 169 CLR 525
Power (1974) 131 CLR 623
Deakin (1984) 58 ALJR 367
Paivinen (1985) 158 CLR 489
Watt (1988) 165 CLR 474
Attorney-General at Law v. Morgan & Morgan (1980) 7 A. Crim. R. 146
Henry & Barber [1999] NSWCCA 107
Morrissey (CCA, unreported 15 July 1994)
McDonald (CCA, unreported 12 October 1998)
Govinden [1999] NSWCCA 118
Lattouf (CCA, unreported 12 December 1996)
Osenkowski (1982) 25 A. Cr. 3794
Shrestha (1991) 173 CLR 48

DECISION: Appeal allowed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60330 of 1999 CORAM: GROVE, J.
SULLY, J.
GREG JAMES, J.
MONDAY 27 SEPTEMBER 1999

REGINA v. PATRICK JOHN WEBSTER
JUDGMENT
1 GREG JAMES, J: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the inadequacy of the sentence imposed on the respondent in the District Court of New South Wales. The sentence was imposed by His Honour Judge Moore at the Campbelltown District Court on 10 June 1999 in respect of one charge of armed robbery to which the respondent pleaded guilty. His Honour imposed a sentence of four years penal servitude comprising a minimum term of six months with an additional term of three and a half years. That sentence was to date from 8 January 1999. 2 There is one ground of appeal that the said sentence is inadequate; that ground is not particularised. 3 Written submissions have been filed by the Crown and by the respondent in respect of the appeal. In those submissions and orally before this court counsel for the Crown has indicated that the thrust of her submission is in respect of the minimum term and particularly in respect of the difference between what might be expected as the norm for a minimum fixed term imposed in respect of a total sentence of four years and that here imposed. Whilst the availability of the finding of special circumstances is not challenged, the result of the exercise of discretion as a consequence of that finding is. Reference was made…

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 Webster

Details

AGLC: R v Webster [1999] NSWCCA 313
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 313
Decision Date: 27 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Webster, the respondent was convicted of armed robbery. The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing that the minimum term was disproportionately short. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence was inadequate and what considerations should guide the imposition of a minimum term in such cases.

The court considered the principles governing the imposition of a minimum term in cases of armed robbery. It emphasised the importance of balancing rehabilitation with objective considerations such as personal and general deterrence. The court noted that the minimum term should reflect the period in custody that objective circumstances required to be served. The guideline judgment in Henry & Ors was also considered, which highlighted the necessity for sentencing judges to accept and apply the principles that governed the imposition of a minimum term.

The court found that the sentence imposed on the respondent was inadequate. It held that the minimum term should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court stressed that sentencing judges must accept and apply the principles that governed the imposition of a minimum term. It held that the minimum term should be sufficient to reflect the period in custody that objective circumstances required to be served.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed, and the case be remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration of the sentence. The court emphasised that the minimum term should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and should reflect the need for general deterrence. It held that the sentencing court must accept and apply the principles that governed the imposition of a minimum term.

Orders