Legal Research
Cases
Stines v R

Stines v R

Case [2019] NSWCCA 115 7 June 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Stines v R [2019] NSWCCA 115
Hearing dates: 13 May 2019
Decision date: 07 June 2019
Before: Leeming JA at [1];
Hamill J at [49];
N Adams J at [50]
Decision:
1. Grant leave to appeal.
2. Allow the appeal and set aside the sentence imposed on 24 August 2018, and in lieu thereof, sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a period of 5 years and 3 months, commencing on 24 August 2018 and expiring on 23 November 2023, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months commencing on 24 August 2018 and expiring on 23 February 2022. The earliest day on which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole is 24 February 2022.
Catchwords: CRIME – appeal against sentence – applicant pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery with wounding – whether insufficient weight given to applicant’s mild intellectual disability – whether sentence manifestly excessive – appeal allowed and applicant resentenced
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 96, 112
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 3A
Cases Cited: Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Australian Health & Nutrition Association Ltd v Hive Marketing Group Pty Ltd [2019] NSWCA 61
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
Kandemir v R [2018] NSWCCA 154
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
R v Israil [2007] NSWCCA 255
R v Matthews [2004] NSWCCA 112; 145 A Crim R 445
R v Wright (1997) 93 A Crim R 48
Ryan v Regina [2017] NSWCCA 209
Yun v R [2017] NSWCCA 317
Viausu v R [2017] NSWCCA 71
Zhao v R [2016] NSWCCA 179
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Stines (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Kluss (Applicant)
K Ratcliffe (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Ross Hill & Associate Solicitors (Applicant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/30785
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

None

Date of Decision:

24 August 2018

Before:

O’Rourke SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/00030785

Judgment

LEEMING JA: The applicant, Mr Robert Stines, seeks leave to appeal from the sentence imposed for his offence of aggravated robbery with wounding, contrary to s 96 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), to which he pleaded guilty. The sentence was imprisonment for 6 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 4 years and 6 months. When allowance is made for the utilitarian discount of 25% applied by the sentencing judge by reason of his early plea, the notional “starting point” was 9 years.
Leave is sought to rely upon two grounds of appeal:

“1. The sentencing judge erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the finding that the applicant’s intellectual disability to reduce the objective seriousness of the applicant’s offending.
2. The sentencing imposed is manifestly excessive.”

The offending conduct

The applicant did not give evidence…

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 Stines v R

Details

AGLC: Stines v R [2019] NSWCCA 115
Case: [2019] NSWCCA 115
Decision Date: 07 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Stines, was convicted of aggravated robbery with wounding and appealed against the sentence imposed by the court. Stines had pleaded guilty to the charges and the court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether insufficient weight was given to the appellant's mild intellectual disability. The appellant argued that the sentence should have been reduced due to his disability, and that the sentence was excessively harsh.

The court considered whether the trial judge had given appropriate weight to the appellant's disability and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant had a history of offending and a mild intellectual disability, which was not taken into account by the trial judge. The court also found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, as it was significantly higher than sentences imposed for similar offences. The court held that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the appellant's disability and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal was allowed and the appellant was resentenced to a lower term of imprisonment, reflecting the appropriate consideration of the appellant's disability and the principles of parity in sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of taking into account the individual circumstances of the offender, including any disabilities, when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also noted that the sentence should be proportionate to the offence and should not be manifestly excessive. The new sentence imposed by the court was deemed to be appropriate and reflected the principles of sentencing in this case.

Orders