Steven Gregory Browne v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 62

CITATION: Steven Gregory Browne v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 62

HEARING DATE(S): 1 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 1; Latham J at 32

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence granted; Appeal against sentence dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

CASES CITED: Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Postiglione v The Queen (1997)
Reg v Diamond (unreported: NSWCCA 18/2/93)
Reg v Chen & ors [2002] NSWCCA 447

PARTIES: Steven Gregory Browne
Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/2164

COUNSEL: G. Rowling - Crown
H. Dhanji - Appellant

SOLICITORS: S. Kavanagh - Crown
S. O'Connor - Appellant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/21/1213
04/21/1209

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Knight DCJ

2005/2164

SULLY J
LATHAM J
14 March 2006

Steven Gregory BROWNE v REGINA

Judgment

SULLY J:

1 On 19 November 2004 the present applicant, Mr. Browne, pleaded guilty before a Local Court Magistrate to a charge of robbery; and to three charges of robbery in company. He was committed accordingly to the District Court for sentence. He adhered, in the District Court, to his pleas of guilty.

2 The applicant stood for sentence on 26 April 2005 before his Honour Judge Knight. At the request of the applicant his Honour took into account a further offence of robbery in company.

3 An offence of robbery contravenes section 94 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years. An offence of robbery in company contravenes section 97(1) of the Crimes Act and attracts upon conviction a statutory maximum penalty of imprisonment for 20 years.

4 His Honour passed sentence as follows:

· On the count of robbery: a fixed term of 1 year

· On one count of robbery in company, and taking into account the additional robbery in company offence which the applicant had asked to be so taken into account: a non-parole period of 2-1/2 years and a balance of term of 2-1/2 years.

· On each of the remaining counts of robbery in company: a non-parole period of 2 years and a balance of term of 2 years.

5 The sentences were dated so as to be partly cumulative and partly concurrent. That dating yielded an overall non-parole period of 3-1/2 years and an overall balance of term of 2-1/2 years. The overall head term was, therefore, one of 6 years.

6 The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence. He relies only upon a parity point which is expressed as follows in the formal Notice of Grounds:

“The applicant has a justifiable sense of grievance by virtue of the disparity between the sentences imposed upon him and those imposed upon his co-offenders Matthew Jones and Samantha Fratus.”

7 These are stated succinctly, and as follows, in the remarks on sentence:

“At 7.30 p.m. on 1 March 2004 a Mr. Gilling boarded a train at St. Leonards Railway…

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 Steven Gregory Browne v Regina

Details

AGLC: Steven Gregory Browne v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 62
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 62
Decision Date: 14 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven Gregory Browne appealed against his sentence for multiple robberies, arguing the disparity between his sentence and those of his co-offenders engendered a justifiable sense of grievance. The Court of Criminal Appeal, consisting of Sully J and Latham J, considered the principle of parity in sentencing and whether the disparity was manifestly excessive and unjust. The Court examined the sentences of the co-offenders, noting that one co-offender, Matthew Jones, was sentenced more leniently than Browne, but the sentencing judge found Jones’s role in the offences to be significantly less severe. The other co-offender, Samantha Fratus, received a non-custodial sentence. The Court concluded that no valid parity point existed and dismissed the appeal against sentence, while granting leave to appeal. The disparity in sentences was not considered manifestly excessive, and there was no justifiable sense of grievance on Browne's part. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted.

Orders