Rickard v Regina - [2007] NSWCCA 238

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Rickard v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 238

HEARING DATE(S): 5 July 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 August 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Hislop J at 2; Harrison J at 3

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal allowed in part. Confirm the sentence imposed for the offence under s 562AB of the Crimes Act 1900. Quash the sentence imposed for the offence under s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900 and in lieu thereof dismiss the charge under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – intimidation with intent to cause victim to fear mental harm and larceny – whether trial judge erred in making findings of fact not supported by evidence or inconsistent with evidence – whether trial judge erred in failing to consider special circumstances in sentencing - whether sentences manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 – ss 117, 562AB
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 – ss 10, 21A, 44(2)

CASES CITED: Neal v R (1982) 149 CLR 305
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704

PARTIES: Matthew James Rickard (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/1268

COUNSEL: H White (Appellant)
W Dawe QC (Crown)

SOLICITORS: L W Williams & Associates (Appellant)
S Kavanagh, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0621

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Berman DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 14 December 2006 (date of sentence)

- 17 -

2007/1268

SPIGELMAN CJ
HISLOP J
HARRISON J

Matthew James Rickard v Regina

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Harrison J.

2 HISLOP J: I agree with the orders proposed by Harrison J and generally with his Honour’s reasons.

3 HARRISON J: On 13 October 2006 the applicant entered pleas of guilty in the District Court of New South Wales to two charges. First, that on 5 March 2006 at Alexandria he did intimidate Claire Talbot with intent to cause her to fear mental harm. This is an offence under s 562AB of the Crimes Act 1900, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years or a fine of 50 penalty units or both. Secondly, that on 5 March 2006 at Alexandria he did steal a black leather jacket the property of Dean Boyd. This is an offence under s 117 of the Crimes Act 1900, and carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 5 years.

4 On 14 December 2006 the applicant appeared for sentence before Berman DCJ and adhered to his pleas of guilty. On the first count he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 2 years with a non-parole period of 18 months. That sentence was to be served by way of periodic detention. On the second count he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed term of 6 months to be served by way of periodic detention and concurrently with the first sentence.

5 The applicant seeks leave…

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 Rickard v Regina

Details

AGLC: Rickard v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 238
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 238
Decision Date: 8 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of Queensland on two counts: intimidation with intent to cause mental harm and larceny. The respondent appealed against the sentence, arguing that the trial judge made findings of fact not supported by the evidence or inconsistent with it, failed to consider special circumstances in sentencing, and that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the trial judge made any factual errors in the sentencing process and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate and just. The respondent contended that the trial judge did not properly consider all relevant mitigating factors and that the sentences were excessively harsh. The central question was whether the trial judge erred in his findings and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence and the trial judge's reasoning in detail. It found that while there were some shortcomings in the trial judge's consideration of certain mitigating factors, these did not significantly affect the overall sentence. The Court held that the trial judge's findings of fact were generally supported by the evidence, and there was no error in the judge's consideration of special circumstances. The Court also found that the sentences, though high, were not manifestly excessive given the severity of the offences and the need to deter such conduct. The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the sentences imposed by the trial judge, finding no substantial or significant error in the sentencing process. The appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders