Wright v The Queen

[2007] NTCCA 5

Wright v The Queen [2007] NTCCA 5

PARTIES: WRIGHT, Wayne Francis

v

THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: CA 26 of 2006 (20531404, 20529288)

DELIVERED: 4 May 2007

HEARING DATES: 18 April 2007

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL and
MILDREN JJ

APPEAL FROM: SUPREME COURT SCC 20531404 and 20529288, 14 June 2006, Martin AJ

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL
Appeal against sentence – robbery while armed – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether weight given to plea of guilty manifestly inadequate – appeal allowed – re-sentenced.

Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), s 211; Misuse of Drugs Act 1990 (NT), s 5 and s 9.

Kelly v The Queen (2000) 10 NTLR 39; R v Place (2002) 81 SASR 395, applied.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Appellant: S Cox QC
Respondent: R Coates

Solicitors:
Appellant: Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment category classification: A
Judgment ID Number: Mar0705
Number of pages: 14

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

Wright v The Queen [2007] NTCCA 5
No. CA 26 of 2006 (20531404, 20529288)

BETWEEN:

WAYNE FRANCIS WRIGHT
Appellant

AND:

THE QUEEN
Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN (BR) CJ, ANGEL AND MILDREN JJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 4 May 2007)

Martin (BR) CJ:
Introduction
[1] The appellant was sentenced to six years and six months imprisonment for the crime of robbery aggravated by the circumstance that he was armed with an offensive weapon, namely, a loaded syringe. In addition, 12 months imprisonment to be served concurrently was imposed for the offence of possessing morphine, together with six months imprisonment for the offence of supplying drugs, three months of which sentence was to be served concurrently with the other sentences.

[2] The appellant was also sentenced to six months imprisonment for the offence of obtaining property by deception, three months of which was to be served concurrently with the previous sentences thereby giving a total period to be served of seven years. A non parole period of three years and six months was fixed.

[3] The appellant appeals against the sentences on the basis that the individual sentences and the total period of seven years were manifestly excessive. The appellant also complains that insufficient reduction was made to reflect the early pleas of guilty.

Facts
[4] At the time of sentence in June 2006 the appellant was aged 29 years. In 1999 the appellant was severely injured at work and was prescribed morphine for pain. He was unable to walk unaided for about two years. The appellant took cannabis, heroin and amphetamines as pain relief and became addicted to drugs.

[5] The appellant met his partner in 2001 and entered into a relationship. In July 2004 the appellant’s partner was pregnant and they moved to Alice Springs to start a new life together. Until early December 2005 the appellant had been employed in various…