Legal Research
Cases
Ridgeway v The Queen

Ridgeway v The Queen

Case [2016] NSWCCA 184 23 August 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ridgeway v R [2016] NSWCCA 184
Hearing dates: 8 August 2016
Decision date: 23 August 2016
Before: Payne JA at [1];
RA Hulme J at [57];
Adamson J at [58].
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.

(2) Appeal allowed.

(3) Quash the sentence for the offence against s 112(2) of the Crimes Act committed on 26 or 27 October 2012 imposed on 1 May 2015 in the District Court.

(4) In lieu thereof, for the offence against s 112(2) of the Crimes Act committed on 26 or 27 October 2012, the applicant be sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 3 years commencing on 5 November 2014 and expiring on 4 November 2017, comprising a non-parole period of 2 years commencing on 5 November 2014 and expiring on 4 November 2016, and a balance of term of 12 months expiring on 4 November 2017.
(5) The applicant is to be released on parole at the end of the non-parole period. Parole is to be subject to the standard conditions prescribed under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 including as to supervision by the Probation and Parole Service.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL – Appeal – Sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive – break and enter with intent to commit larceny – delay in prosecution
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 112, 117
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s 5
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s 9
Cases Cited: Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58
Blanco v R [1999] NSWCCA 121; 106 A Crim R 303
Delaney v R; R v Delaney [2013] NSWCCA 150; 230 A Crim R 581
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 244 CLR 520
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Campbell [2014] NSWCCA 102
R v Gay [2002] NSWCCA 6; 49 ATR 78
R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Sabra v R [2015] NSWCCA 38
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Bradley (aka Koesha) Ward Ridgeway (applicant)
Regina (respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms H Cox (applicant)
Mr H Baker (Crown)
Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Service (NSW/ACT) (applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)

File Number(s): 2013/3341452013/361965
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

1 May 2015

Before:

Syme DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/334145
2013/361965

Judgment

PAYNE JA: On 1 May 2015 the applicant, Ms Ridgeway, was sentenced in the District Court for two offences committed in 2013 and one offence committed in 2012. The applicant pleaded guilty to all of the offences.
The 2013 offences were first, an offence of aggravated break and enter with intent to commit larceny contrary to s 112(2) of the Crimes Act1900 (NSW) and, second, an offence of larceny contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act. Both…

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 Ridgeway v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ridgeway v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 184
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 184
Decision Date: 23 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ridgeway v The Queen, the respondent, Ridgeway, appealed against his sentence for breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. Ridgeway's actions occurred in 2003, but due to a significant delay in prosecution, the trial did not occur until 2017. Ridgeway argued that the delay in bringing the case to trial resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence being imposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the delay in prosecution, which amounted to fourteen years, rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider whether the delay had any impact on the fairness or severity of the sentence imposed and whether the delay warranted a reduction in sentence. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the trial judge had appropriately considered the delay in sentencing.

The court held that the delay in prosecution did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The High Court emphasised that the trial judge had correctly considered the delay and its impact on the sentence. The court found that the delay did not affect the fairness or severity of the sentence, as the judge had taken into account the length of the delay and its potential impact on Ridgeway's culpability. The court further held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant any reduction.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge. Ridgeway's appeal against the sentence was unsuccessful, and the original sentence stands.

Orders