Stines v The Queen - [2020] NSWCCA 228

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Stines v R [2020] NSWCCA 228
Hearing dates: 5 August 2020
Decision date: 11 September 2020
Before: Meagher JA at [1];
Fullerton J at [2];
Button J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Uphold the appeal.
(3) Quash the sentence imposed by Judge O’Rourke SC on 27 November 2019.
(4) In substitution, the applicant Robert Stines is sentenced to a non-parole period of 1 year to commence on 24 May 2021 and expire on 23 May 2022, to be followed by a parole period of 1 year, to expire on 23 May 2023.
(5) The date upon which the applicant is to be released to parole pursuant to this sentence is 23 May 2022.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – distortion well beyond statutory ratio by pre-existing sentence structure – strong subjective case – intellectual disability – appeal allowed – applicant re-sentenced

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 94

Cases Cited:
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; HCA 57
Stines v R [2019] NSWCCA 115

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Robert Stines (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S J Odgers SC (Applicant)
E Wilkins SC (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2018/74290
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

27 November 2019

Before:

O’Rourke SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2018/74290

MEAGHER JA: I agree with the reasons and proposed orders of Button J.
FULLERTON J: I agree with Button J.
BUTTON J:

Introduction

On 27 November 2019, Mr Robert Stines (the applicant) was sentenced by her Honour Judge O’Rourke SC in the District Court sitting at Parramatta. He seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on that day.
The applicant had pleaded guilty to an offence of robbery, contrary to s 94 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), an offence which carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 14 years.
He was sentenced to a head sentence of 2 years with a non-parole period of 12 months, commencing on 24 November 2021.
At the time of the imposition of that sentence, the applicant was serving a separate term of imprisonment of 5 years 3 months with a non-parole period of 3 years 6 months (which was the result of reduction after a successful appeal against sentence to this Court): see Stines v R [2019] NSWCCA 115). That sentence had commenced on 24 August 2018.
The sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge on 27 November 2019 was therefore partially cumulative upon, and partially concurrent with, the non-parole period of the sentence for the armed robbery that the applicant was already serving.
The sentenced imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 7 June 2019 had a ratio between its non-parole period and its head sentence of 67%. However, after the sentence was imposed for the robbery on 27 November 2019,…

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 The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stines v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 228
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 228
Decision Date: 11 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stines v The Queen, the respondent, Stines, appealed against the sentence imposed by the lower court, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the original sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case and the applicant's intellectual disability. The High Court was tasked with assessing whether the pre-existing sentence structure had distorted the sentencing ratio to an extent that was unjust. The court also needed to weigh the strength of the prosecution's case and consider the impact of the applicant's intellectual disability on the sentence.

The High Court considered that the sentencing structure had indeed distorted the ratio well beyond what was permissible, given the pre-existing sentence. The court noted that the prosecution had made a strong subjective case, but this alone was not sufficient to justify the severity of the sentence. The intellectual disability of the applicant was also a significant factor that the original sentencing court had not adequately considered. The High Court concluded that the original sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the overall circumstances of the case, the strength of the prosecution's case, and the applicant's intellectual disability.

The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the applicant be re-sentenced. The court emphasised the need for sentencing courts to carefully consider the impact of intellectual disability on the sentencing process and to ensure that any pre-existing sentence structure does not unduly influence the overall sentence. The court also highlighted the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for courts to avoid imposing excessively harsh penalties that do not align with the principles of justice. The High Court's decision underscored the significance of these factors in ensuring that sentences are fair and appropriate, taking into account the unique circumstances of each case.

Orders