REGINA v. COUPE [2001] NSWCCA 112

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : REGINA v. COUPE [2001] NSWCCA 112 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA No. 60340 of 2000 HEARING DATE(S) : Wednesday 28 March 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 28 March 2001

PARTIES : REGINA v. COUPE, Christine JUDGMENT OF : Greg James J at 1; Smart AJ at 24

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/11/0168 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Shadbolt, DCJ. OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Crown: C.K. Maxwell, QC. App: In person SOLICITORS : Crown: S.E. O'Connor App: In person CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - sentence - appeal - proportion of non-parole period to total sentence LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 CASES CITED: N/A DECISION : Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; applicant sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment to commence 22.10.99 and to expire 21.4.04; there shall be a non-parole period of two and a half years to commence 22.10.99 and to expire 21.4.02

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60340 of 2000 CORAM: GREG JAMES, J. SMART, AJ. WEDNESDAY 28 MARCH 2001

REGINA v. CHRISTINE COUPE

JUDGMENT

1 GREG JAMES, J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed in the District Court of New South Wales on the applicant for the crime of aggravated break, enter and steal, the circumstance of aggravation being that the crime was accompanied by the infliction of corporal violence. The maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment. The applicant was sentenced for that crime to four and a half years imprisonment commencing on 22 October 1999 and expiring on 21 April 2004. A non-parole period was imposed of three years commencing on 22 October 1999 and expiring on 21 October 2002. 2 The facts fell within a quite narrow compass and were succinctly referred to by the learned trial judge in his remarks on sentence. He also referred to three further break, enter and stealing matters that the applicant sought to have taken into account on a Form 1, and which his Honour did take into account. 3 The applicant went to the home of the victim, entered it and was rifling through the possessions of the family when she was approached by the householder and her daughter. There was a scuffle. In the process of that scuffle, the applicant came to cause to the victim some minor bruising, lacerations and, what his Honour described as, a minor wound which occasioned, what might be described as, a sore cheek. The applicant had, whilst in the dwelling, assembled from the various places in the house some $50 in cash, a Tag watch, a pair of Ray Ban sunglasses, $US1 note, and a Maglite torch. 4 The applicant was restrained by the family at the scene until the police arrived and took her away. She pleaded guilty. His Honour gave the applicant full discount for that plea but, of course, as his Honour pointed out, the plea was in the context of her being caught, absolutely red-handed. 5 Before passing to the other matters his Honour noted, I should record that we have received from the applicant very full and detailed written submissions. Those submissions advert to the events that apparently followed the applicant and the householder being in the scuffle to which I have referred. They relate to, in particular, the son of the householder attending at the scene and releasing two pit bull terriers into the yard, apparently to assist in detaining her. 6 There was, in the materials provided by the applicant, reference by her to the use of a screwdriver or the asserted use of a screwdriver towards those animals and a suggestion that it might have been thought by his Honour that she had threatened the householders. 7 An examination of his Honour's remarks on sentence dissipates entirely any such concern. There is no suggestion in any findings of his Honour of any finding of that kind adverse to the applicant, nor indeed would it have been open to his Honour on that charge to have had regard to such matters as aggravating the offence absent proof beyond reasonable doubt of those matters or admission of them by the applicant. 8 His Honour, when he came to pass sentence, did have regard to the applicant's prior criminal record. That record is, on any view of it, appalling. His Honour expressed the content of it this way:- "I note that her record stretches over many, many pages. In the time that has been available to me I have counted 82 matters where there has been a finding of guilt or she has been convicted. The present matters add an extra four to that list, making it 86. Amongst the matters in the past have been 17 breaking, entering and stealing offences and the present four (which) make 21."