Steven James Aslett v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 48

CITATION: Steven James Aslett v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 48

HEARING DATE(S): 20 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE:
24 March 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Barr J at 2; Howie J at 21

DECISION: 1. Grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal 2. Quash the sentences appealed against and substitute the following - Count 1: a non-parole period of five years commencing on 28 July 2003 and expiring on 27 July 2008 and a balance of term of four years; Count 2: a non-parole period of ten years commencing on 28 July 2005 and expiring on 27 July 2015 and a balance of term of four years; Count 3: a non-parole period of nine years commencing on 28 July 2007 and expiring on 27 July 2016 and a balance of term of five years; and Count 4: a non-parole period of seven years commencing on 28 July 2009 and expiring on 27 July 2016 and a balance of term of seven years.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - sentencing - armed robbery in circumstances of special aggravation - aggravated sexual intercourse without consent in company - whether sentencing judge erred in regarding particular features as aggravating criminality - whether sentencing judge erred in findings of fact - parity - whether sentences manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: R v Tadrosse [2005] NSWCCA 145
R v Street [2005] NSWCCA 139
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213

PARTIES: Steven James Aslett, Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2005/1566

COUNSEL: D Arnott SC
H Cox

SOLICITORS: S Kavanagh
Steve O'Connor

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/0071

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Finnane QC DCJ

2005/1566

SPIGELMAN CJ
BARR J
HOWIE J
24 MARCH 2006

STEVEN JAMES ASLETT v REGINA

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: I agree with Barr J.

2 BARR J: The applicant, Steven James Aslett, seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court. As his trial was about to begin in that court he pleaded guilty to offences that may be summarised as follows -

1. On 17 July 2003 in a certain suburb of Sydney he broke and entered a certain dwelling house and committed therein a serious indictable offence, namely armed robbery in circumstances of special aggravation, they being that he was in company and wounded one of the complainants, whom I shall call SA;

2, 3, 4. At the same time and place he had sexual intercourse with SA without her consent while in the same company and for a period afterwards deprived SA of her liberty.

3 The offence in the first count attracted a maximum sentence of twenty-five years. For the remaining offences the maximum sentence was imprisonment for life. Finnane QC DCJ imposed the following sentences -

Count 1: a non-parole period of five years commencing on 28 July 2003 and expiring on 27 July 2008 with a balance of term of five years;

Count 2: a non-parole period of eleven years commencing on 28 July…

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 James Aslett v Regina

Details

AGLC: Steven James Aslett v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 48
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 48
Decision Date: 24 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved Steven James Aslett, who was charged with armed robbery, aggravated sexual assault, and related offences. The dispute centered on the severity of Aslett's crimes and the appropriate sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decisions made by the sentencing judge. The legal issues required to be determined included whether the sentencing judge had erred in considering certain features as aggravating the criminality, whether there were errors in the findings of fact, and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court examined the sentencing judge's assessment of the aggravating factors, specifically the circumstances of the armed robbery and the aggravated sexual assault. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in considering these aspects as aggravating the criminality. Furthermore, the court found no errors in the sentencing judge's findings of fact, as they were supported by the evidence presented. The court also considered the principle of parity, ensuring that Aslett's sentence was consistent with sentences imposed in similar cases. After careful consideration, the court determined that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive.

The court concluded that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the relevant principles and that the sentences were appropriate given the circumstances. The High Court upheld the original sentences, affirming that the sentencing judge had not erred in their assessment. The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal, maintaining the sentences as imposed by the lower court.

Orders