R v Bavadra [2000] NSWCCA 292

Reported Decision : [2000] 115 A Crim R 152

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Bavadra [2000] NSWCCA 292 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60845/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 7 August 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 31 August 2000

PARTIES : Regina Lorima Bavadra JUDGMENT OF : Beazley JA at 1; Wood CJ at CL at 2; Greg James J at 53

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/0018 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL English DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : P. Hock for Crown G.D. Wendler for Applilcant SOLICITORS : E.E. O'Connor Van Houten CATCHWORDS : CATCHWORDS - CRIMINAL LAW- appeals - Crown appeal against inadequacy of sentence - s5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - robbery whilst armed - robbery whilst armed with dangerous weapon - robbery in company - Form 1 matters - aggravating circumstances - accelerating criminality - principle of totality - concurrent sentences - double jeopardy ACTS CITED CASES CITED: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s97 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) s22 Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) s5D DECISION : Sentences imposed in relation to counts 2,3,4,6 and 7 quashed. In lieu, respondent sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for four years for count 2, six years for count 3, four years for count 4, six years for count 6 and a fixed term of imprisonment for nine years for count 7 to be served concurrently and partly consecutively with the sentences imposed for the remaining counts.

- -

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60845/99 BEAZLEY JA WOOD CJ at CL GREG JAMES J THURSDAY 31 AUGUST 2000 Regina v Lorima BAVADRA

JUDGMENT

The respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery whilst armed, two counts of robbery in company, and three counts of robbery whilst armed with a dangerous weapon. In addition, there were eleven offences included in the Form 1, which included six separate and unrelated robberies. The DPP appealed under s5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against the inadequacy of sentence imposed on grounds that (1) the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to the offences included in the Form 1, (2) in relation to any particular count, the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and (3) there was manifest leniency in the way in which the sentencing order was framed by way of concurrent sentences.