Ronald Eatts v The Queen - [2013] NSWCCA 14

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ronald EATTS v R [2013] NSWCCA 14
Hearing dates: 28 September 2012
Decision date: 08 February 2013
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at [1]
Hidden J at [2]
Adamson J at [21]
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted, appeal dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal against sentence - sexual assaults in prison - sentences accumulated upon previous non-parole period - long custodial history of applicant - whether special circumstances should have been found because of accumulation
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: - Barrett v R [2011] NSWCCA 213
- R v Killick [2002] NSWCCA 1, 127 A Crim R 273
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Ronald Edward Eatts (applicant)
Regina (respondent Crown)
Representation: Counsel:
C Loukas (applicant)
H Wilson (respondent Crown)
Solicitors:
Aboriginal Legal Service (applicant)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent Crown)

File Number(s): 2008/7260
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2009-02-04 00:00:00

Before:

Bennett SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2008/7260

Judgment

McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Hidden J.

HIDDEN J: The applicant, Ronald Edward Eatts, pleaded guilty in the District Court to the following charges:

two charges of sexual intercourse without consent, an offence under s 61I of the Crimes Act 1900 which carries a maximum sentence of 14 years imprisonment and a standard non-parole period of 7 years;

a charge of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, an offence under s 61J of the Act which carries a maximum sentence of imprisonment for 20 years and a standard non-parole period of 10 years.

The applicant asked the sentencing judge to take into account on a Form 1, when sentencing him for the aggravated offence, two further offences of sexual intercourse without consent and one of indecent assault.

On 4 February 2009, the following sentences were imposed:

On each of the charges of sexual intercourse without consent, imprisonment for 9 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 7 years, dating from 29 October 2008;

On the charge of aggravated sexual intercourse without consent, taking into account the matters on the Form 1, imprisonment for 12 years with a non-parole period of 9 years, also to date from 29 October 2008.

The overall sentence, then, was imprisonment for 12 years with an effective non-parole period of 9 years. The significance of the commencement date of 29 October 2008 will become apparent.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against those sentences. The application is some 3 years out of time, and his application for extension of time is founded upon the material in an affidavit of his solicitor. In written submissions, the Crown prosecutor challenged the adequacy of the explanation proffered by that affidavit and argued that an extension should not be permitted. However, the issue was not addressed in oral submissions, counsel for the applicant and the Crown both dealing with the merit of the matter. Given the seriousness of the…

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 Ronald Eatts v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ronald Eatts v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 14
Case: [2013] NSWCCA 14
Decision Date: 08 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Eatts applied for leave to appeal against his sentence for sexual assaults committed in prison. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant, with a lengthy criminal history, had previously been sentenced to imprisonment, including a non-parole period. The latest convictions resulted in sentences that accumulated upon his previous non-parole period, prompting Eatts to argue that special circumstances should have been considered due to this accumulation.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge should have recognised the accumulation of the sentences as a special circumstance warranting a lesser penalty. The court had to consider the principles governing the imposition of sentences in cumulative cases and whether the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in sentencing. The applicant contended that the accumulation of sentences, coupled with his lengthy criminal history, warranted a more lenient approach, while the Crown argued that the sentences were appropriate given the severity of the offences.

The court acknowledged the unique nature of the case, where the accumulation of sentences could indeed be seen as a special circumstance. However, it found that the trial judge had adequately considered the totality of the circumstances, including the applicant's criminal history and the nature of the offences, in determining the appropriate sentences. The court held that while the accumulation of sentences might warrant consideration, it did not automatically constitute a special circumstance that would necessitate a reduced sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentences were upheld.

Orders