Legal Research
Cases
Watts v R

Watts v R

Case [2007] NSWCCA 153 14 June 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Watts v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 153

HEARING DATE(S): 4 May 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 June 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hidden J at 10; Harrison J at 11

DECISION: 1. Extend the time to apply for leave to appeal to 16 February 2007; 2. Quash the sentence imposed for the offence in Count 2 on the indictment and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a non-parole period of 3 years and a total term of 5 years to commence on 8 January 2007; the applicant is eligible for release on parole on 7 January 2010.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - application for leave to appeal and leave to extend time to appeal - appeal against sentence - 11 offences of break enter and steal, three offences of break and enter with intent to steal - guilty plea to all offences - whether overall sentence manifestly excessive taking into account applicant's age and subjective circumstances

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - ss 112(1), 113(1), 195
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - s 33
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 6(3)

CASES CITED: In the matter of the Attorney General's application (No 1) under s 26 of the Criminal Appeal Act; R v Ponfield; R v Scott; R v Ryan; R v Johnson [1999] NSWCCA 435
R v Danuca [2005] NSWCCA 45
R v Johnson [1999] NSWCCA 431
R v Lay [2006] NSWCCA 45
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704

PARTIES: Aubrey Watts (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/486

COUNSEL: H Dhanji (Applicant)
P Ingram (Crown)

SOLICITORS: S O'Connor ,Solicitor for Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales, (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 05/21/0171; 04/21/3307; 04/21/3197

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sides DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 11 April 2005, 29 May 2006, (dates of sentence)

2007/486

GILES JA
HIDDEN J
HARRISON J
14 June 2007

AUBREY WATTS v REGINA

Judgment

1 GILES JA: The applicant applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on 11 April 2005 in respect of a number of offences committed between 7 September 2003 and 8 January 2004. An extension of time was necessary; the delay was explained, and it should be granted.

2 The material facts and the basis for the judge’s sentencing, and the submissions made in the application, are set out in the reasons of Harrison J, which I have had the advantage of reading in draft. I agree with his Honour’s conclusion that the total effective sentence of 11 years with a non-parole period of 7 years was appealably excessive, that being occasioned by the appealably excessive sentence for the offence in Count 2 of the indictment of a non-parole period of 4 years and a total term of 8 years to commence on 8 January 2007. My reasons are a little different from those given by his Honour.

3 The sentencing judge considered that, with 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 Watts v R

Details

AGLC: Watts v R [2007] NSWCCA 153
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 153
Decision Date: 14 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Watts was the applicant in the High Court, seeking leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. Watts had pleaded guilty to 11 counts of break and enter and steal, and three counts of break and enter with intent to steal. The court had sentenced Watts to a total of 10 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. Watts sought leave to appeal, arguing that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive, given his age at the time of the offences and his subjective circumstances. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether leave to appeal and to extend time to appeal should be granted.

The court considered the sentencing principles set out in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), including the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. The court noted that Watts had a significant criminal history, but also considered his age at the time of the offences and his subjective circumstances. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences committed. The court also noted that Watts had not shown that the sentence was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offences, or that there had been a failure to have regard to relevant sentencing principles. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and leave to extend time to appeal.

The High Court held that the sentence imposed on Watts was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal and leave to extend time to appeal. The court emphasised the need for sentencing courts to have regard to all relevant sentencing principles, and to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. The court also noted that the fact that an appellant may disagree with the sentence imposed does not necessarily mean that the sentence is manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentence imposed on Watts was not manifestly excessive, and that there had been no failure to have regard to relevant sentencing principles. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and leave to extend time to appeal, and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the primary judge.

Orders