Legal Research
Cases
Robinson v The Queen

Robinson v The Queen

Case [2017] NSWCCA 315 15 December 2017

Appeal

Sentencing

Breach of Contract

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Robinson v R [2017] NSWCCA 315
Hearing dates: 17 November 2017
Decision date: 15 December 2017
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
R A Hulme J at [2];
Wilson J at [66]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Leave to appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeal against sentence – high degree of assistance to authorities – discount of 20% for assistance – total combined discount 45% for assistance and guilty plea – whether discount for assistance sufficient – limit in s 23(3) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 – discount discretionary assessment – no error
CRIME – appeal against sentence – specially aggravated enter dwelling with intend to commit robbery in company – specially aggravated break, enter and commit robbery in company – manifest excess – use of comparable cases – no meaningful range to be found – sentence not manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 111(3), 112(3)
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW) s 68A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 23, 44(2)
Cases Cited: Aslett v R [2012] NSWCCA 235
Burrows v R [2017] NSWCCA 45
De Jong v R; Tuimaualuga v R; Zechel v R; Puru v R [2015] NSWCCA 32; 249 A Crim R 252
Haouchar v R [2014] NSWCCA 227
Harper v R [2017] NSWCCA 159
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Hutchinson v R [2014] NSWCCA 317
LB v R [2013] NSWCCA 70
Micklesson v R [2009] NSWCCA 61
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 120
Palijan v R [2010] NSWCCA 142
Panetta v R [2016] NSWCCA 85
R v Baghdadi [2008] NSWCCA 239
R v Campbell [2014] NSWCCA 102
R v Chaaban [2006] NSWCCA 107
R v Cheh [2009] NSWCCA 134
R v Dole; R v Nguyen [2010] NSWCCA 101
R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 38; 219 A Crim R 415
R v Elmir; R v Salami [2003] NSWCCA 192
R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220
R v Lenati [2008] NSWCCA 67
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92; 172 A Crim R 151
R v Van Rysewyk [2008] NSWCCA 130
Sheen v R [2011] NSWCCA 259; 215 A Crim R 208
SL v R [2015] NSWCCA 30; 249 A Crim R 295
Srikantharajah v R [2012] NSWCCA 209
Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64
Z v R [2014] NSWCCA 323
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robinson (a pseudonym) (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr J Watts (Applicant)
Mr N Adams (Crown)
Solicitors:
Universal Law
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2014/333082
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

22 October 2015

Before:

Wells SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2014/333082

Judgment

BATHURST CJ: I agree with the orders proposed by R A Hulme J and with his Honour’s reasons.
R A…

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 Robinson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Robinson v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 315
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 315
Decision Date: 15 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Robinson, appealed against his sentence for committing aggravated home invasions, specifically for entering a dwelling with intent to commit robbery in company and for breaking and entering and committing robbery in company. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. Robinson argued that the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive and that the discount for his assistance to authorities was insufficient. The central legal issues were whether the discount for assistance was adequate, and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the sentencing judge had properly exercised their discretion in applying a discount for the appellant's assistance to authorities, noting that the total combined discount for assistance and a guilty plea was 45%. The court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in law by applying the discount for assistance, and that the limit in section 23(3) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 did not preclude the discount. The court also held that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the appellant's degree of assistance and that the discount was sufficient. In terms of the overall sentence, the court found that there was no meaningful range of sentences to be found in comparable cases, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence imposed by the lower court. The decision highlights the importance of the sentencing judge's discretion in determining the appropriate discount for assistance and the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the offence committed. The court's decision also serves as a reminder that the sentencing judge's assessment of the degree of assistance provided by the appellant is a matter of fact and discretion, and is not easily challenged on appeal.

Orders