Regina v Taylor [2000] NSWCCA 442

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Taylor [2000] NSWCCA 442 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60400/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 23/10/00 JUDGMENT DATE : 23 October 2000

PARTIES : Regina v Adam James Taylor JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJ at CL at 48; Studdert J at 53; Whealy J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/21/2202 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Judge Moore OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Mr L. M. B. Lamprati - Crown Mr T. J. Ryan - Respondent SOLICITORS : S. E. O'Connor - DPP Bateman Battersby - Respondent

LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 R v Valentini (1989) 46 A Crim R 223 at 225 The Queen v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 at 395 The Queen v Morgan (Unreported CCA 24 June 1998) CASES CITED: The Queen v Hall (Unreported CCA 28 September 1995) The Queen v Ranse (Unreported CCA 8 August 1994) The Queen v Griggs (2000) NSWCCA 33 at paras 25-30 The Queen v Lattouf (NSWCCA unreported 21 October 1996) The Queen v Allpass (1994) 72 A Crim R 561 DECISION : Appeal Dismissed

IN THE COURT

OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60400/00

WOOD CJ at CL STUDDERT J WHEALY J

MONDAY 23 October 2000

REGINA v Adam James TAYLOR

JUDGMENT 1 WHEALY: This is a Crown appeal against a sentence pronounced by Moore DCJ at Campbelltown District Court on 14 June 2000. 2 The respondent appeared for sentence that day on a charge of robbery to which charge he had pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended for two years. 3 The ground of the appeal is that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. 4 The facts may be stated briefly. At about 5.45pm on Friday 27 August 1999 Ms Thi Nham Ngo, a woman of about 43 years of age, was walking up the stairs at Warwick Farm Railway Station. The respondent had been standing at the top of the stairs at the station. He walked down towards Ms Ngo who was ascending in the opposite direction. He then pushed her in the chest with both hands causing her to fall down the stairs. The victim attempted to stand up but fell over again. At this time the respondent stood over her, grabbed her handbag and pulled it from her possession. He ran from the station towards Warwick Farm Racecourse. He was detained by a number of male bystanders who gave chase and held him until the police arrived. The respondent was arrested and conveyed to Liverpool Police Station where he participated in an Electronic Record of Interview. 5 He made admissions that he had assaulted Ms Ngo, taken the bag and run away. He denied, however, taking any cash from the victim's bag. This had been found empty, save for some coins, in a property at Stroud Street, Warwick Farm near where the respondent had been detained. A search of the respondent's clothing showed that $180 in notes was hidden in the lining of his tracksuit pants. 6 The respondent was on bail when he committed this offence. He has a relatively minor criminal history. At the time of the commission of the offence the respondent, who was then 18 years of age, had been convicted of larceny. 7 As I have said the sentence was pronounced on 14 June 2000. There was an unusual feature in the sentence proceedings. Both the Crown and the respondent had finished their submissions. It appears the Crown had asked for the imposition of a full-time custodial sentence. The sentencing judge commenced his remarks on sentence as follows: "Mr Taylor, I feel that if I were not to impose a full time gaol sentence I would not be doing my duty. There are very special features in your case which militate very strongly against a gaol sentence. I have to balance the question …." 8 At this stage his Honour was interrupted. It appears from the transcript, when the proceedings resumed, that the respondent had suddenly been overcome with emotion. He began to cry quite loudly and said a number of times that he did not wish to go to gaol. This outburst of emotion apparently persuaded the Judge that the respondent was "absolutely genuine" and his Honour felt satisfied as a consequence that the respondent had achieved individual rehabilitation and that his "personal deterrence", as his Honour said, was "absolute". 9 The sentencing Judge thereupon changed his mind and indicated that he would pass a sentence of two years imprisonment but suspend it on condition that the respondent enter into a bond. This is what his Honour did and the conditions of the bond included that the respondent be of good behaviour and that he accept the supervision of the Probation and Parole Service and comply with its reasonable directions. I should add that the sentencing Judge, as he explained, had been about to impose a sentence of two years with a non parole period of about three and a half months, when he was interrupted. 10 It is fair to say that the learned sentencing Judge was troubled himself by the change of mind which he had experienced. At the conclusion of the sentencing remarks he said: "Cases which fall on the point of the watershed like this one are those which cause me the most concern and one must be very careful to do the best one can to come to the right disposition. If one reaches the wrong conclusion, then that can have disastrous results for the offender who, if I am wrong, will find himself re-sentenced by the Court of Criminal Appeal and have the added burden of having had the hopes held out today dashed when I am corrected." 11 His Honour then passed sentence which was one of two years imprisonment but which was suspended on the respondent entering into a bond as I have outlined. His Honour emphasised that the sentence took into account the two months and eleven days already spent by the respondent in custody.