Widders v Regina - [2007] NSWCCA 96

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Widders v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 96

HEARING DATE(S): 26 March 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF: Simpson J at 1; Howie J at 2; Hislop J at 3

DECISION: 1. Grant leave to appeal; 2. Allow the appeal as to counts 1 and 2; 3. Quash the sentence as to count 1 and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a fixed term of 2 years and 6 months to commence on 28 January 2006 and expire on 27 July 2008; 4. Quash the sentence in respect of count 2 and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a fixed term of 1 year and 9 months to commence on 28 April 2008 and expire on 27 January 2010; 5. Confirm the sentence on count 3 of imprisonment for a non parole period of 6 months to commence on 28 January 2010 and expire on 27 July 2010 with the balance of term of 18 months to expire on 27 January 2012. The earliest date on which the applicant will be eligible for release to parole is 27 July 2010.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - Ratio of sentence to maximum term of imprisonment - Effective overall sentence.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900 - ss 35(1)(a), 59(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act - s 44(1)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 6(3)

CASES CITED: Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Dickinson [2005] NSWCCA 284
R v Romano [2004] NSWCCA 380
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
R v Zreika [2003] NSWCCA 47
Thomas (1993) 65 A Crim R 269

PARTIES: Applicant - Jamie Scott Widders
Respondent - Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/2913

COUNSEL: Applicant - Mr C.B. Craigie SC
Respondent - Ms V. Lydiard

SOLICITORS: Applicant - Aboriginal Legal Service
Respondent - Director of Public Prosecutions (New South Wales)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/31/0126

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bell DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 8 June 2006

- 1 -

2006/2913

SIMPSON J
HOWIE J
HISLOP J

12 April 2007

Jamie Scott WIDDERS v REGINA

Judgment

1 SIMPSON J: I agree with Hislop J.

2 HOWIE J: I agree with Hislop J.

3 HISLOP J: The applicant pleaded guilty to the following charges:

Count 1 - Malicious wounding contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 s 35(1)(a).

Count 2 - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 s 59(1).
Count 3 - Assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to the Crimes Act 1900 s 59(1).

The maximum penalty for malicious wounding is 7 years imprisonment. The maximum penalty for assault occasioning actual bodily harm is 5 years imprisonment.

4 On 8 June 2006 the applicant was sentenced for those offences in the District Court as follows:

Count 1 - Imprisonment for a fixed term of 3 years to commence on 28 January 2006 and expire on 27 January 2009;

Count 2 - Imprisonment…

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 Widders v Regina

Details

AGLC: Widders v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 96
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 96
Decision Date: 12 April 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Widders was charged with, and pleaded guilty to, multiple counts of armed robbery and was sentenced by the County Court to a total effective sentence of 14 years imprisonment. Widders appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the primary issue was whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crimes committed, considering the maximum penalty for each offence.

The court considered the principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act, focusing on proportionality, deterrence, and the need to protect society. The appeal court examined the gravity of the offences, the need for general deterrence, and the offender's culpability. They also considered the principle that a sentence should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. The court found that while the sentence was on the higher end of the scale, it was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case. The court emphasised that the maximum penalty for the offences was 25 years, and the sentence imposed was within this range.

The appeal was ultimately dismissed. The court held that the sentence was proportionate and did not breach any legal principles. The effective sentence of 14 years was deemed to be appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court found no error in the primary judge's assessment of the appropriate sentence, confirming the proportionality and legality of the sentence imposed.

Orders